MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Brasilnut on January 27, 2019, 08:54
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
-
Something is rotten in the state of Shutterstock :(
They can spot all sorts of similars in an individual submitters portfolio but don't seem to have the ability to spot it across different ports.
-
Wow, great job - you are doing a real service to all legitimate contributors by outing these fraudsters. Although it looks like they often change the color or orientation of the images, you'd think it would be relatively easy for a company like SS do develop automated methods to flag suspicious accounts that could be followed up by a person. They definitely need a fraud division!
It seems like the same stolen pics are showing up in ports of people from different countries? Is there an organized web doing this? Or are people spoofing their country of origin as well? I assume SS doesn't go after them to recoup the money that was paid out and give it to the copyright holders, but that is what really should be done to minimize the problem and be fair to the true content providers.
In the meantime great work and carry on the effort.
-
Wow, great job - you are doing a real service to all legitimate contributors by outing these fraudsters. Although it looks like they often change the color or orientation of the images, you'd think it would be relatively easy for a company like SS do develop automated methods to flag suspicious accounts that could be followed up by a person. They definitely need a fraud division!
It seems like the same stolen pics are showing up in ports of people from different countries? Is there an organized web doing this? Or are people spoofing their country of origin as well? I assume SS doesn't go after them to recoup the money that was paid out and give it to the copyright holders, but that is what really should be done to minimize the problem and be fair to the true content providers.
In the meantime great work and carry on the effort.
Thanks. It is really amazing that this has gone so far for so long, bordering on professional negligence really. They appear to be taking action but seems to be too little, too late. :/
These accounts seem similar and linked. There appears to be groups, based in India, scouting 24/7 these scummy free sites such as Unsplash, Pixabay and Pexels for suckers who upload and as soon as will download to re-license.
Most worrying and something that I'm keeping an eye on is how I've spotted some fraudulent images within these accounts that are licensed as commercial without releases. I had a few examples but didn't flag them at the time and now can't locate them anymore without taking up a huge amount of time.
This suggests a link suggests possible collusion between QC reviewers and fraudsters, upping the notch. Not making any accusations as don't have evidence to present but will keep an eye on this development.
No idea what happens to earnings from fraud. I assume SS pockets the money as copyright owner is left in the dark. More transparency on this is needed.
-
Total moles identified: 250
Oh, wow! Thank you so much for your hard work! Really appreciated. However it is surprising that it has to be done and reported by someone outside SS. Apparently they have no working algorithms or human power to even bother with this issue.
-
A few years ago SS was talking grandly about how they were a "technology" company with a big R&D group.
I think they built a system so automated and so complicated that they can't manage it anymore; and some employees, partners and other 'insiders' have figured out how to play it. People with access are bringing in other people's stolen portfolios for a price, direct, no 'upload' and no inspection, thousands of images at a time. They've probably lost enough key development people by now that they're afraid to touch the code, can't take the risk of breaking things, and don't have enough monitoring hooks in place.
Its too late, the ship has sailed... they can't afford to pay new people to look back at 100 million images and decide what's real anymore. Even if they did, how many of those poorly paid 'inspectors' could they trust?
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
You are amazing doing this
Were it not for your persistence and outspokenness, SS would have ignored this whole matter and just carried on status quo
You should be offered some kind of compensation from SS for what you’ve done and are continuing to do
So many have bitched and complained about this problem, but until you came along SS did nothing about it
You sir, deserve much kudos !
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
So many have bitched and complained about this problem
Thanks!
I think you hit the nail in the head there. Most people just complain but don't do anything about it.
What I've done, with the help of others, is not rocket science. Simply created a list with links and updated regularly. There were already numerous links in various threads, all I did was consolidated into one thread and post.
Time consuming: fk yea, but so is bitching with no purpose.
Not sure how long I'll be able to keep this up though as the weather/light will be improving soon and I much rather be out shooting than wacking moles!
You should be offered some kind of compensation from SS for what you’ve done and are continuing to do
Not expecting anything, but someone from their management has recently contacted me directly to assist them on improving their anti-fraud processes.
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
You are amazing doing this
Were it not for your persistence and outspokenness, SS would have ignored this whole matter and just carried on status quo
You should be offered some kind of compensation from SS for what you’ve done and are continuing to do
So many have bitched and complained about this problem, but until you came along SS did nothing about it
You sir, deserve much kudos !
Many of us reported and reported and got back "we'll look into it" or how to file a DMCA if we were the owner. I think bringing the problem to the forum there for everyone to see, not one here and there, but the whole big list of hundreds, got someones attention. Bringing this to the forum was a good way to finally break down the lip service and never actually doing anything.
Exposing how large the problem is, did it. As long as there was an email here and there and a complaint on the forum, we got ignored. I doubt that the threats of exposing this or a class action suit had anything to do with the change. Showing everything about how big the problem is, to everyone, anyone can read the forum right? That's what worked.
I think it was Alex's big list that did the trick.
-
Absolutely spot on. With Alexandre' s initiative and the hard work of all those involved SS has been effectively manoeuvred into a position where they can no longer simply ostrich the problem. I think it has also exposed for all to see an embarrassing hole in their infrastructure which if left unchecked would undoubtedly leave them highly exposed in terms of litigation. One glaring example that comes to mind is the "berries" shot in one of the threads over there. A shot which returns nothing but the same image multiple times in the "similars" grid in search results. Unbelievable how tenuous their platform really is. Either that or the extent of collusion at some level.
-
Amazing good Job there Alex !!!
-
This is one thing that SS is dropping the ball on. I've flagged so many infringers over the years and it's starting to make me numb. People were straight up stealing or tracing my work. It unbelievable how many people out there think it's okay to do this kind of thing. And they all come from the same few countries.
SS need to implement some kind of machine learning into their approval process to automatically flag similars before they get approved. They should ban any contributor who attempts to upload infringing work so that we don't have to deal with this nonsense. For a company with so much money, they have the resources to do this.
-
This is one thing that SS is dropping the ball on. I've flagged so many infringers over the years and it's starting to make me numb. People were straight up stealing or tracing my work. It unbelievable how many people out there think it's okay to do this kind of thing. And they all come from the same few countries.
SS need to implement some kind of machine learning into their approval process to automatically flag similars before they get approved. They should ban any contributor who attempts to upload infringing work so that we don't have to deal with this nonsense. For a company with so much money, they have the resources to do this.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the tech is already implemented. All the major sites have a search visually similar images or footage option. When SS lists similars I don't believe they use a keyword or tag based metadata function. I think it is image recognition. If it's not robust enough maybe they should look at something we are looking at implementing from TinEye. If you don't know who TinEye is you really should.
https://services.tineye.com/MatchEngine
As some have alluded to in another forum, the real question is how so many of these are making it past the review process.
Something else many of you might be interested in is https://binded.com. I dare say a fusion of these technologies (plus others) on a single platform is not far off and is exactly what the microstock industry needs right now.
-
This is one thing that SS is dropping the ball on. I've flagged so many infringers over the years and it's starting to make me numb. People were straight up stealing or tracing my work. It unbelievable how many people out there think it's okay to do this kind of thing. And they all come from the same few countries.
SS need to implement some kind of machine learning into their approval process to automatically flag similars before they get approved. They should ban any contributor who attempts to upload infringing work so that we don't have to deal with this nonsense. For a company with so much money, they have the resources to do this.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the tech is already implemented. All the major sites have a search visually similar images or footage option. When SS lists similars I don't believe they use a keyword or tag based metadata function. I think it is image recognition. If it's not robust enough maybe they should look at something we are looking at implementing from TinEye. If you don't know who TinEye is you really should.
https://services.tineye.com/MatchEngine
As some have alluded to in another forum, the real question is how so many of these are making it past the review process.
Something else many of you might be interested in is https://binded.com. I dare say a fusion of these technologies (plus others) on a single platform is not far off and is exactly what the microstock industry needs right now.
You're right, it is implemented... on the search side.
I don't know the inner workings of the approval side, but if that tool was available during the approval process, a lot of these thieves would have caught before they had their first approval. Coming from working in a tech company, we have lousy internal tools and there isn't a lot of resources dedicate to it.
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
Very nice work everybody and Alex for consolidating it all and shining the light on it!
SS should definitely offer you something as you're basically doing their job - for free.
Wondering how many photos have been taken down so far - with these contributors. Are we talking thousands or even millions?
-
This is one thing that SS is dropping the ball on. I've flagged so many infringers over the years and it's starting to make me numb. People were straight up stealing or tracing my work. It unbelievable how many people out there think it's okay to do this kind of thing. And they all come from the same few countries.
SS need to implement some kind of machine learning into their approval process to automatically flag similars before they get approved. They should ban any contributor who attempts to upload infringing work so that we don't have to deal with this nonsense. For a company with so much money, they have the resources to do this.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the tech is already implemented. All the major sites have a search visually similar images or footage option. When SS lists similars I don't believe they use a keyword or tag based metadata function. I think it is image recognition. If it's not robust enough maybe they should look at something we are looking at implementing from TinEye. If you don't know who TinEye is you really should.
https://services.tineye.com/MatchEngine
As some have alluded to in another forum, the real question is how so many of these are making it past the review process.
Something else many of you might be interested in is https://binded.com. I dare say a fusion of these technologies (plus others) on a single platform is not far off and is exactly what the microstock industry needs right now.
You're right, it is implemented... on the search side.
I don't know the inner workings of the approval side, but if that tool was available during the approval process, a lot of these thieves would have caught before they had their first approval. Coming from working in a tech company, we have lousy internal tools and there isn't a lot of resources dedicate to it.
Good points. I don't pretend to know anything about the SS review process either, but it seems to me that they used to reject on the basis of similar not all that long ago. Maybe I assume too much but if the tech is still there on the search side then why on earth has it been disabled/not implemented on the review side. Too slow perhaps for the sheer volume of images they want to push through now? Too many DB queries for a poorly scaled infrastructure? Who knows, but something is definitely not right. SS is a giant in the industry with arguably the most resources to tackle an issue they were aware of for quite some time now. Ripping off CC licensed images from wallpaper sites or UnSplash etc. is one thing, but uploading content which already exists in their database over and over again is inexcusable.
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
So far it seems that no accounts on the list have been shut down this week, disappointing.
Will put together a end of week update on Sat night.
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
So far it seems that no accounts on the list have been shut down this week, disappointing.
Will put together a end of week update on Sat night.
Maybe you should send a message to Alex@shutterstock and remind them they are supposed to be doing something as they promised
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
So far it seems that no accounts on the list have been shut down this week, disappointing.
Will put together a end of week update on Sat night.
Maybe you should send a message to Alex@shutterstock and remind them they are supposed to be doing something as they promised
I'm in direct contact with someone high up within their management and pending an update.
Appears that they're undertaking some changes to their processes. I'm speculating but this may be the reason for the slowdown in wackamoling, while they figure out the best way to tackle this huge challenge.
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
They've started wacking them again.
Just counted 15 big accounts (500+) shut down and at least 96 smaller ones.
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
They've started wacking them again.
Just counted 15 big accounts (500+) shut down and at least 96 smaller ones.
So I see however a lot of the newly deleted still have their accounts up even though there are no images.
The earlier thieves were shut down completely. I wonder what SS are doing?
It leaves the thieves open to upload more stolen content
-
Small update:
-----
All-time summary:
Total moles identified to date: 468
Total moles wacked: 236
Summary for week ending Feb 3:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 27 - Feb 2: 116
Moles pending: 105
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96349-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-3-468-so-far-flagged/
-
How are you doing this, maybe we can make it an organized effort if we cab get some people to volunteer in this group.
-
How are you doing this, maybe we can make it an organized effort if we cab get some people to volunteer in this group.
Yes, lots of people helping out on the thread updates:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96349-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-3-468-so-far-flagged/
I do some searching/wacking but mainly consolidating and confirming suspicious accounts. Seems to be working well.
-
Small update:
-----
All-time summary:
Total moles identified to date: 468
Total moles wacked: 236
Summary for week ending Feb 3:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 27 - Feb 2: 116
Moles pending: 105
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96349-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-3-468-so-far-flagged/
Highest praise for you, and finally somehow getting their attention. I only got two shut down last year on my own, you've done an outstanding job. And I realize that some people on the SS forum have been contributing to your collection as well.
If the crooks found that they can't profit, hopefully the word will get out and they will do this less. If the claim of locations are true, those people are probably using fake IDs or borrowed IDs and could be the same group behind it. I mean, once they can't profit, we could get rid of a repeating person or orginization and get the profits to the correct artists.
-
Small update:
-----
All-time summary:
Total moles identified to date: 468
Total moles wacked: 236
Summary for week ending Feb 3:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 27 - Feb 2: 116
Moles pending: 105
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96349-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-3-468-so-far-flagged/
Highest praise for you, and finally somehow getting their attention. I only got two shut down last year on my own, you've done an outstanding job. And I realize that some people on the SS forum have been contributing to your collection as well.
If the crooks found that they can't profit, hopefully the word will get out and they will do this less. If the claim of locations are true, those people are probably using fake IDs or borrowed IDs and could be the same group behind it. I mean, once they can't profit, we could get rid of a repeating person or orginization and get the profits to the correct artists.
I think they'll just go to another agency. I haven't done any research at the likes of iStock or Adobe Stock but I'm sure they have their own issues with theft, however, they probably have better systems in place to flag similars, etc (I'm assuming).
Most of their keywords are so terrible that not sure they'll ever get sales. Then there's the 3-month payment probation. I can't see how doing this can ever be worthwhile and hope they start to realise that it's really fruitless. Some have decent Photoshop skills and should just focus on that instead of looking for shortcuts.
Even though I started the initiative, this is a team job and really appreciate those that are taking their time to find these moles. I need to stress that nobody, including myself, is getting paid a cent for this.
-
Can you change the name to "Wack-a-dolt"? :)
Yes we assume, but it seems there's no member program working on other sites. Probably because SS is biggest, they attract the most of the easy money crooks. I have reported totally off photos on iStock, they are still there. I mean keywords that are irrelevant and none match the image at all, not nit picking.
Oh I almost forgot the entertaining part of this, the descriptions. That would make a good collection before they go away. I should have started last month before we lost a couple of the best and funniest.
-
Update:
Total moles identified to date: 463
Total moles wacked: 235
Summary for week ending Feb 10:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 10: ZERO (0)
Moles pending: 101
Great work everybody, except SS!
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96415-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-10-463-so-far-flagged/
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
Thanks
-
Typical of SS I could have predicted they'd get bored of actually doing any real work on this.
I'll make a tongue in cheek prediction ~ you've seen the last of SS deleting thieves accounts.
-
Typical of SS I could have predicted they'd get bored of actually doing any real work on this.
I'll make a tongue in cheek prediction ~ you've seen the last of SS deleting thieves accounts.
Yeah, I'm kinda bored too...
-
Typical of SS I could have predicted they'd get bored of actually doing any real work on this.
I'll make a tongue in cheek prediction ~ you've seen the last of SS deleting thieves accounts.
Yeah, I'm kinda bored too...
I can imagine you would be because you are not being paid to do this and its obviously something those people in the Empire State should have been doing in the first place!
If I were you I'd send Jon Oringer a PM on his FB account! Pointing out they are aiding copyright thieves and leaving themselves open to legal action .
See if the guy can put down his guitar long enough to actually see what his minions are allowing to happen.
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I don't think that's the kind of thing thieves go for.
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this.... Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/ (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/)
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?
Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?
I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?
Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?
I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
The only thing I can think is money laundering ie using an account to transfer dodgy funds cross border?
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?
Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?
I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
The only thing I can think is money laundering ie using an account to transfer dodgy funds cross border?
Interesting angle. Someone buys a subscription then only downloads from people with these trash collections. Wouldn't that kind of throw up a flag for SS? I mean say I have someone in another part of the world, buy a subscription and download the limit from mine, for a profit. Or as your idea money laundering, break even, gets the money back somewhere else. But then there are records of the transactions, as expenses on one end or earnings on the other.
Still I wouldn't discount something else going on, beyond stupid uploads of useless files that will never sell, or absurd reviews that miss thousands of blurred backgrounds created by a PS action. How does that guy with the driving through the city get all that passed?
Or did you have some other way that these accounts are somehow tied to money laundering? I don't see it.
-
All-time summary:
Total moles identified to date: 448
Total moles wacked: 337
Summary for week ending Feb 17:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 17: TWO (2)
Moles pending: 111
This is my last week doing this as it's apparent that SS don't give a fk about this project with only two wacked moles after 2 weeks. I and others helping out obviously have way more important things to do with our time. If anybody else wants to pursue this apparently fruitless task further, please be my guest.
Perhaps I'll re-continue if I see SS pull their weight. Meanwhile the number of thieves keeps growing...
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96484-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-17-448-so-far-flagged/
-
All-time summary:
Total moles identified to date: 448
Total moles wacked: 337
Summary for week ending Feb 17:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 17: TWO (2)
Moles pending: 111
This is my last week doing this as it's apparent that SS don't give a fk about this project with only two wacked moles after 2 weeks. I and others helping out obviously have way more important things to do with our time. If anybody else wants to pursue this apparently fruitless task further, please be my guest.
Perhaps I'll re-continue if I see SS pull their weight. Meanwhile the number of thieves keeps growing...
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96484-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-17-448-so-far-flagged/
Its the culture in these organisations ~ a manager comes round says "we have a problem" they work furiously on it for a week or two then the manager stops checking and they go back to their laissez faire attitude.
You are right they don't give a f.u.c.k and the only thing that would make them give one is for a major law suit or government legislation
-
I think informing the buyers may be more productive or the press and the shareholders. If the 111 pending moles stole 10 images each and the images were sold 5 times each (legit and stolen), that's 5550 buyers who don't know if their images are infringing the legitimate copy holders rights or not. Tracing 1% of the buyers and informing them of their dilemma would have 55 irate people knocking on Shutterstocks door.
If my estimates are a little conservative and the thieves stole substantially more and they were all good selling images (who would steal a duff one?) then the numbers grow exponentially, 500 thieves, with 100 images, selling 50 images each. That's 250,000 buyers not knowing if they bought from the copyright holder or not, and a potential indemnity bill of $10,000 per image = $2,500,000,000.
Now even those numbers might be a little on the low side given that 448 moles were found in a month without the tools that Shutterstock has at their disposal. I think that if you can find reasonable estimates, not my guesstimates, the press and shareholders would have a field day with such numbers and wonder why Shutterstock choose to ignore the issue, not good for our sales short term, but would put the market on a proper footing.
-
@obj owl -- I think you are being naive to think more than a small handful of the buyers would even care. From their point of view, they are protected by purchasing from SS. They don't really care beyond that, and are not likely to go very far out of their way to raise a fuss. At most, you might get a few of them to sign a chain letter complaining. That letter better not take more than 30 seconds to handle though, or you have lost them.
Same with SS stockholders. If you cannot show that SS has a large legal risk with a potentially expensive lawsuit, then it is not likely you will get any traction there. Those people want SS to be profitable, and if they can double-sell the same item with no additional cost, well, that is a win in their books.
Though I wish Brasilnut would continue jousting with windmills (every thief removed brings the chance of my making another sale a little higher), but I can certainly understand why s/he is giving up. The windmills keep spinning, and not paying very much attention to the knight with the lance...
-
what?
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17§ion=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?
Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?
I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
The only thing I can think is money laundering ie using an account to transfer dodgy funds cross border?
Interesting angle. Someone buys a subscription then only downloads from people with these trash collections. Wouldn't that kind of throw up a flag for SS? I mean say I have someone in another part of the world, buy a subscription and download the limit from mine, for a profit. Or as your idea money laundering, break even, gets the money back somewhere else. But then there are records of the transactions, as expenses on one end or earnings on the other.
Still I wouldn't discount something else going on, beyond stupid uploads of useless files that will never sell, or absurd reviews that miss thousands of blurred backgrounds created by a PS action. How does that guy with the driving through the city get all that passed?
Or did you have some other way that these accounts are somehow tied to money laundering? I don't see it.
Yes I was thinking along the lines you said. I think its unlikely but not completely implausible by making the collections so huge it might make the activity less visible plus if you are not looking for something you won't find it. SS seem to have a habit of not looking for things or some of these collections or those of image thieves wouldn't exist.
-
Though I wish Brasilnut would continue jousting with windmills (every thief removed brings the chance of my making another sale a little higher), but I can certainly understand why s/he is giving up
I'm not quitting.
I'm pessimistically waiting for SS to start pulling their own weight. They did OK in the first weeks but have recently completely stopped taking this seriously...and so have I. But I would encourage others to keep going in my absence, it's not rocket science as one thief usually leads to another in the "similars" results.
Let's see how this pans out.
-
Though I wish Brasilnut would continue jousting with windmills (every thief removed brings the chance of my making another sale a little higher), but I can certainly understand why s/he is giving up
I'm not quitting.
I'm pessimistically waiting for SS to start pulling their own weight. They did OK in the first weeks but have recently completely stopped taking this seriously...and so have I. But I would encourage others to keep going in my absence, it's not rocket science as one thief usually leads to another in the "similars" results.
Let's see how this pans out.
Maybe hard work, but you are the first one to get action instead of lip service. I think you have the gratitude of many of us. No you don't get paid for the hard work, but I personally thank you.
-
Really pleased you are not giving up!!! :))))
-
All-time summary:
Total moles identified to date: 448
Total moles wacked: 337
Summary for week ending Feb 17:
Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 17: TWO (2)
Moles pending: 111
This is my last week doing this as it's apparent that SS don't give a fk about this project with only two wacked moles after 2 weeks. I and others helping out obviously have way more important things to do with our time. If anybody else wants to pursue this apparently fruitless task further, please be my guest.
Perhaps I'll re-continue if I see SS pull their weight. Meanwhile the number of thieves keeps growing...
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96484-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-17-448-so-far-flagged/
Its the culture in these organisations ~ a manager comes round says "we have a problem" they work furiously on it for a week or two then the manager stops checking and they go back to their laissez faire attitude.
You are right they don't give a f.u.c.k and the only thing that would make them give one is for a major law suit or government legislation
I think SS has been straddling a very thin line for a very long time now. I also think it's only a matter of time before a major law suit does materialize due to Brasilnut's very public exposure of the problem. All it might take is for a well known photographer finding that their work has been stolen and offered up for sale. From there all it would take is their lawyer discovering the true extent of the problem during their research and realizing that there are many many more potential clients involved beyond just one. Class action.
It wouldn't take a team of paralegals very long to scour the forum archives for evidence showing not only SS's complete awareness of the issue, but also its failure to act quickly in addressing it - if at all. Of course their entirely defensible position will be that they are merely a global platform for people to sell their work, and can not be expected to research every image accepted into their database for possible copyright infringement. They will point to their contributor agreement to show that every contributor warrants that the copyright is their own and that any wrongdoing or misrepresentation is therefore the sole responsibility of the contributor. Honestly, fair enough. What I think they would have a very hard time defending at this point is what is they have been allowing for so long within their own database.
There will be some potentially embarrassing questions asked including exactly how many infringing images are in the database, why existing technology wasn't enabled which could easily ferret out these images, as well as perhaps the most embarrassing one - where did the sales revenue from these stolen images actually go? Was any effort ever made after the discovery of suspect images and deleted accounts to identify and contact the original copyright owners and at the very least turn over any sales revenue? Depending on the findings it could answer the question many of us are naturally asking ourselves - is Shutterstock actually complicit at this point or not?
-
There will be some potentially embarrassing questions asked including exactly how many infringing images are in the database, why existing technology wasn't enabled which could easily ferret out these images, as well as perhaps the most embarrassing one - where did the sales revenue from these stolen images actually go? Was any effort ever made after the discovery of suspect images and deleted accounts to identify and contact the original copyright owners and at the very least turn over any sales revenue? Depending on the findings it could answer the question many of us are naturally asking ourselves - is Shutterstock actually complicit at this point or not?
Great points above.
As a publicly-listed company this goes to the very heart of corporate responsibility and directors' duties. Stakeholders rely on corporate information to make investment decisions. There are currently 440,000 active accounts generating quarterly sales of $165.46 million (source: https://www.fairfieldcurrent.com/news/2019/02/14/165-46-million-in-sales-expected-for-shutterstock-inc-sstk-this-quarter.html (https://www.fairfieldcurrent.com/news/2019/02/14/165-46-million-in-sales-expected-for-shutterstock-inc-sstk-this-quarter.html)). Can someone guarantee that 5% of those contributor accounts are NOT fraudulent and an unspecified amount generated from those accounts is NOT a "proceed of crime"? If 5% were proved to be fraudulent, how would this affect their reputation and stock price?
SS are of course regularly audited. These past few weeks myself and others have provided auditors with more than enough evidence of the scale of the fraud going on almost unimpeded. SS will probably just do enough to cover themselves until something huge, as stated by DavidK above, occurs. Plaintiffs may find difficultly in claiming for lost profits as I doubt that any of these fraudulent accounts generate much since they're so badly captioned/keyworded, however, there may be other types of claims available.
I should probably keep going to maintain the momentum so it's brought (again) to the forefront of their attention or at the very least, well-known sources. Just need to find the time and motivation - I've spent about 20 mins on this today and already flagged some 15 accounts, with the help of others. I'm sure if SS devoted 10,000 hours of manpower they would be able to flag at least 44,000 suspicious accounts, which would be equal to at least 1% of their total number of contributors. Simply hire interns based in India, which ironically is where most of the fraudulent accounts are based.
-
As I said before. Write article for something like Petapixel. Bad publicity always help. Especially now, with their "We're not stock, we're Shutterstock", when they are trying to bbuild up brand. That kind of publicity sure wouldn't help.
-
There will be some potentially embarrassing questions asked including exactly how many infringing images are in the database, why existing technology wasn't enabled which could easily ferret out these images, as well as perhaps the most embarrassing one - where did the sales revenue from these stolen images actually go? Was any effort ever made after the discovery of suspect images and deleted accounts to identify and contact the original copyright owners and at the very least turn over any sales revenue? Depending on the findings it could answer the question many of us are naturally asking ourselves - is Shutterstock actually complicit at this point or not?
Great points above.
As a publicly-listed company this goes to the very heart of corporate responsibility and directors' duties. Stakeholders rely on corporate information to make investment decisions. There are currently 440,000 active accounts generating quarterly sales of $165.46 million (source: https://www.fairfieldcurrent.com/news/2019/02/14/165-46-million-in-sales-expected-for-shutterstock-inc-sstk-this-quarter.html (https://www.fairfieldcurrent.com/news/2019/02/14/165-46-million-in-sales-expected-for-shutterstock-inc-sstk-this-quarter.html)). Can someone guarantee that 5% of those contributor accounts are NOT fraudulent and an unspecified amount generated from those accounts is NOT a "proceed of crime"? If 5% were proved to be fraudulent, how would this affect their reputation and stock price?
SS are of course regularly audited. These past few weeks myself and others have provided auditors with more than enough evidence of the scale of the fraud going on almost unimpeded. SS will probably just do enough to cover themselves until something huge, as stated by DavidK above, occurs. Plaintiffs may find difficultly in claiming for lost profits as I doubt that any of these fraudulent accounts generate much since they're so badly captioned/keyworded, however, there may be other types of claims available.
I should probably keep going to maintain the momentum so it's brought (again) to the forefront of their attention or at the very least, well-known sources. Just need to find the time and motivation - I've spent about 20 mins on this today and already flagged some 15 accounts, with the help of others. I'm sure if SS devoted 10,000 hours of manpower they would be able to flag at least 44,000 suspicious accounts, which would be equal to at least 1% of their total number of contributors. Simply hire interns based in India, which ironically is where most of the fraudulent accounts are based.
That's so racist.
/s
-
That's so racist.
Out of the 450 moles identified, aprox. 70% are based in India, followed by Pakistan, then Thailand...China...Ukraine...Russia. Need bigger sample though.
Don't shoot the messenger. :P
-
That's so racist.
/s
No, its a basic statement of facts.
-
I was being sarcastic. Some members here will immideately point a finger at you as being a racist, when you say, that most thieves come from eastern countries. Like Zero-talent for example.
-
I was being sarcastic. Some members here will immideately point a finger at you as being a racist, when you say, that most thieves come from eastern countries. Like Zero-talent for example.
I figured you were :) I recall the earlier discussion.
-
That's so racist.
Out of the 450 moles identified, aprox. 70% are based in India, followed by Pakistan, then Thailand...China...Ukraine...Russia. Need bigger sample though.
Don't shoot the messenger. :P
So, basically, ranked by GDP per capita, factor in population and the ease to access internet. Gotcha
-
Factor in economic disparity. Factor out race. Period.
-
Factor in economic disparity. Factor out race. Period.
I don’t see where race was mentioned, only locations.
-
Factor in economic disparity. Factor out race. Period.
I don’t see where race was mentioned, only locations.
Nor do I. Just commenting on the comments.
-
It's the mindset.
-
Glad to report that SS have recently wacked 77 out of 111 remaining moles!
-
Glad to report that SS have recently wacked 77 out of 111 remaining moles!
And now it seems they've publicly warned you not to do it on the forum anymore. Looks like you've touched a nerve. Really starting to resent SS in an actionable way.
-
Glad to report that SS have recently wacked 77 out of 111 remaining moles!
And now it seems they've publicly warned you not to do it on the forum anymore. Looks like you've touched a nerve. Really starting to resent SS in an actionable way.
Obviously they don't want the extent of the fraud being made public as discussed earlier.
Was fun while it lasted and now I can focus on making money!
-
Looks like SS locked that thread on their forums
Bad publicity even though they have brought it on themselves
Shameful SS, shameful
-
Glad to report that SS have recently wacked 77 out of 111 remaining moles!
And now it seems they've publicly warned you not to do it on the forum anymore. Looks like you've touched a nerve. Really starting to resent SS in an actionable way.
Yeah, I’m thinking I am going to close my account there tomorrow, and I’ve been there since about 2004. Not like I make much money there, anyway, any more. Everything’s probably been stolen already. >:(
-
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):
Total moles identified: 250
Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120
Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/
Complete list:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/
Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...
I don't know how you feel but it looks like Shutterstock stopped deleting the thieves accounts
They probably pay a bit of lip service and carry on their usual head in the sand approach :(
Correct.WE......."WE" Have all the Power my Friends. They own Nothing.
-
So.....what now? Abandon identifying?
-
So.....what now? Abandon identifying?
SS have notified me that the crowdsourced "wackamole" model isn't according to their rules and regulations and runs the risk of identifying legitimate accounts which may be shut down mistakenly.
-
I cant believe people can also get away with tracing others work. This isnt mine but found it whilst looking for an image.
ORIGINAL
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chocolate-egg-exploded-591617762?src=0X4eAC9v_ULTULXheR6jPg-1-0 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chocolate-egg-exploded-591617762?src=0X4eAC9v_ULTULXheR6jPg-1-0)
TRACED
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/brown-egg-exploded-1309887166?src=TcFgiEbSAi4-5OUh1ou35Q-1-29 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/brown-egg-exploded-1309887166?src=TcFgiEbSAi4-5OUh1ou35Q-1-29)
How do you report this?
-
I cant believe people can also get away with tracing others work. This isnt mine but found it whilst looking for an image.
ORIGINAL
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chocolate-egg-exploded-591617762?src=0X4eAC9v_ULTULXheR6jPg-1-0 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chocolate-egg-exploded-591617762?src=0X4eAC9v_ULTULXheR6jPg-1-0)
TRACED
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/brown-egg-exploded-1309887166?src=TcFgiEbSAi4-5OUh1ou35Q-1-29 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/brown-egg-exploded-1309887166?src=TcFgiEbSAi4-5OUh1ou35Q-1-29)
How do you report this?
Sadly I can believe it....for a company that claims it has advanced IT it should be a simple matter to use image matching technology.......if they wanted to.
-
Thats a bad sign to lock a thread.
If they had an effective QC procedure for approving images and if they had a functioning fraud/misuse system allowing people to bulk report fraudulent accounts the entire thread would not be needed.
The current system where you can only report an individual stolen image and MUST be the original copyright holder to complain is completely unsuited and ineffective for the large scale, factory style abuse profiles.
The fact is they have neither of those so these accounts exist and are still being created and the ONLY time they took action is when people put a lot of their own effort in and went public with it.
You'd have thought they'd welcome people doing their work for them and flagging frauds but apparently not.
Its a bad sign for a company to start locking and restricting, especially when its failed to address the issues that allow the problem in the first place.
-
I think companies call this not
locking and restricting,
but ...protecting.
:) :P
Jokes aside, individuals perhaps have to also protect their work and properties instead of (as the mass of people do) exploiting their content for nothing and offering from mediocre to extra good images or videos or audio or whatever for free, for likes, for trends or for "exposure".
-
An interesting read on how they basically don't give a rats-arse about protecting our content.
How does Shutterstock investigate infringement claims?
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/How-does-Shutterstock-investigate-infringement-claims (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/How-does-Shutterstock-investigate-infringement-claims)
-
So they locked the thread?
Well it just about tells us all we need to know about that company :(
-
So.....what now? Abandon identifying?
SS have notified me that the crowdsourced "wackamole" model isn't according to their rules and regulations and runs the risk of identifying legitimate accounts which may be shut down mistakenly.
I am sure many news organizations will be thrilled to do more extensive research about the public traded company
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/reader-center/confidential-tip-line.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/reader-center/confidential-tip-line.html)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/anonymous-news-tips/?utm_term=.3e40e87445c5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/anonymous-news-tips/?utm_term=.3e40e87445c5)
https://tips.axios.com (https://tips.axios.com)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tips (https://www.thedailybeast.com/tips)
-
Innocent accounts could easily be identified and confirmed by Shutterstock,
IMHO this indicates that shutterstock are either
1. Lazy, can't be bothered brushing it under the carpet hoping it'll go away.
2. Are so incompetent they don't know what they are doing
3. Know full well what is happening (lets face it they have enough evidence) and
as a deliberate policy are allowing it to happen.
I see they totally failed to lock any of the other threads established by Brasilnut.
-
Innocent accounts could easily be identified and confirmed by Shutterstock,
IMHO this indicates that shutterstock are either
1. Lazy, can't be bothered brushing it under the carpet hoping it'll go away.
2. Are so incompetent they don't know what they are doing
3. Know full well what is happening (lets face it they have enough evidence) and
as a deliberate policy are allowing it to happen.
I see they totally failed to lock any of the other threads established by Brasilnut.
I think it's a mixture of 1 and 3. As for point 2, even if they don't have the competence, let's face it, they are a NYSE-listed company with 700+ employees in dozens of international offices. They can afford to hire fraud-detection experts, programmers, compliance officers, etc. This day in age, they can outsource less expensive resources in India, etc.
A small % of accounts were legitimate
A small number of flagged accounts out of the 500 in total were legitimate, particularly in the beginning of the Project. We all learn with experience. However, most worrying (for me) was that the list was taken at such face-value and some of the accounts were shut down without apparent further checks (i'm not privy to the processes undertaken). Overall, way too much risk put on me and I'm not even a SS consultant/employee. These wackamole processes take time and resources need to be devoted to double/triple/quadruple check any flagged account.
"Lazy, can't be bothered brushing it under the carpet hoping it'll go away".
As for point number 1, I agree it's more about keeping this issue hush hush, less public exposure the better...keep feeding investors false truths such as 550,000 contributors and 250 million content, even if a small % of that are fraudsters and some of the million are either stolen or spammy junk. It's common practice in a corporate world to manipulate and these are savvy businesspeople who need to make the best decisions for the company/investors.
"Know full well what is happening (lets face it they have enough evidence) and
as a deliberate policy are allowing it to happen".
Point 3 is tricky because if they know/knew it was happening and failed to do anything about it (or didn't do enough), that opens up a whole can of legal worms.
More transparency needed
I would have preferred / prefer a completely transparent approach to address the problem head-on and state publicly "Yes, we have a fraud issue and we are doing XYZ to combat it. These are our results for XYZ period, compared to ZJD period." Instead, it's sort of like...let's censor and this will all blow over in a few weeks. It's not too late and they may come out publicly but I wouldn't hold my breath...
Human beings are motivated by incentives
I would like to see this Project re-introduced with a sort of incentive system to flag fraudulent accounts with profits from fraudulent accounts being donated as a charitable contribution. Difficult for anybody to disagree with this approach as it's simply turning a negative into a positive and they're welcome to spin this as much as they want. Hell, we as contributors, can even vote on which charity and see the fruits of our work being put to good use.
Conclusion and some ideas
Even if a crowdsourced model isn't the most accurate, leading to some mistakes (which is completely normal for untrained contributors), it's by far the most efficient. Fking hell, 99.5% of copyright holders have NO IDEA that their work has been stolen, so what hope is there for any of them to use the time-consuming DMCA procedure!?
At least this public action brings immediate attention, for the better. Contributors, such as myself, care about the sustainability of the agency and these types of frauds and spammy accounts to a lesser extent, deeply affect the morale of contributors. The extent of fraud is turning many contributors into Doom & Gloomers.
Anyway, it was fun and useful while it lasted and I thank all those who supported and got involved directly and indirectly.
Alex
-
A very sensible and measured analysis Alex.
I think you perservered long and hard with this with no reward. :(
I makes me angry that SS really show no gratitude or wherewithall to solve the problem. >:(
-
sS is really starting to piss me off as an agency that is turning on its own contributers (or business partners in reality)
I’m just waiting for that first video sale under the ‘new and exciting’ terms they recently announced - maybe that’ll give me the push over the edge to remove at least my videos
-
What if someone like stocksubmitter offered a content match notification service? Maybe a monthly whole portfolio image search to find stolen identical shots in other accounts. The agencies should do it on their own but since they don't... perhaps third party can fill the need.
I would pay a reasonable fee for a service like that.
-
What if someone like stocksubmitter offered a content match notification service? Maybe a monthly whole portfolio image search to find stolen identical shots in other accounts. The agencies should do it on their own but since they don't... perhaps third party can fill the need.
I would pay a reasonable fee for a service like that.
I'm pretty sure there's a service out there which was discussed a while back on here
-
I'm pretty sure there's a service out there which was discussed a while back on here
semi offtopic answer as for the "service" or technology,
Youtube already have a "free" tool available for bigger channels that scans and report to original video content uploaders any duplicate video attempt and give them the option to report and terminate any copy of their work is stolen and reuploaded.
-
If SS had a real reporting channel that actually responded and looked into image theft, the forum thread would never have been started.
I'm sure their reasoning is, if one person is reported in public for having stolen images, and it's false, that would make the whole project negative for false accusations. But if they are looking and don't close down someone for a mistake, I don't see any huge problem. The reason they take time, is to prevent a false locking of an account. Fine, I defend that.
Now back to the start, many people reported a number of different stolen or copied, some stolen parts reused or traced vectors, and most of the time, nothing happened.
Before the public effort some of us wrote and got back a standard form letter telling us how to file a DMCA if we were the owner. Asking again, the same letter and "this is the way it is." Now I see they do allow private reporting. You need to post the link to the actual image and the copy, not just files or numbers. Lets see if private reporting works and the project was a success by creating a channel for reporting?
-
A very sensible and measured analysis Alex.
I think you perservered long and hard with this with no reward. :(
I makes me angry that SS really show no gratitude or wherewithall to solve the problem. >:(
Well said. If SS doesn't keep up maybe there's a way to continue in private.
-
Going private isn't as effective, imo.
By EXPOSING the scale of the problem, it's easier for others to care and even help out. Also, there's a psychological shame factor involved. Numerous thieving contributors contacted me directly to plead to have me remove their name from the list. This is a potentially powerful deterrent.
-
Going private isn't as effective, imo.
By EXPOSING the scale of the problem, it's easier for others to care and even help out. Also, there's a psychological shame factor involved. Numerous thieving contributors contacted me directly to plead to have me remove their name from the list. This is a potentially powerful deterrent.
Interesting, the thieves come to the SS forum, I suppose to troll for images to steal and ideas to copy.
-
Going private isn't as effective, imo.
By EXPOSING the scale of the problem, it's easier for others to care and even help out. Also, there's a psychological shame factor involved. Numerous thieving contributors contacted me directly to plead to have me remove their name from the list. This is a potentially powerful deterrent.
Interesting, the thieves come to the SS forum, I suppose to troll for images to steal and ideas to copy.
Thats a reason I never post on the SS forum.
Beside the fact their moderation is non existant except in this case where they obviously deleted all of the whackamole threads
So no effort to solve the real problem but plenty of ability in shutting down discussions highlighting their incompetence.
-
Going private isn't as effective, imo.
By EXPOSING the scale of the problem, it's easier for others to care and even help out. Also, there's a psychological shame factor involved. Numerous thieving contributors contacted me directly to plead to have me remove their name from the list. This is a potentially powerful deterrent.
Interesting, the thieves come to the SS forum, I suppose to troll for images to steal and ideas to copy.
Those "show your latest download" threads and "latest EL" make for easy pickings for the thieves.
Why do some contributors deliberately shoot themselves in the foot in this way?
---------
Meanwhile, SS's Ministry of Truth has completely deleted all threads related to wackamoling. Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9I0QhV08w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9I0QhV08w)
-
Did you save any of those lists - or at least take screen shots?
-
Did you save any of those lists - or at least take screen shots?
Most have been wacked, to be fair.
-
At least this issue is gaining some awareness from Pixabay contributors.
https://pixabay.com/forum/chitchat-pixabay-related-or-not-14/interesting-article-about-copyright-infringement-8122/
-
At least this issue is gaining some awareness from Pixabay contributors.
https://pixabay.com/forum/chitchat-pixabay-related-or-not-14/interesting-article-about-copyright-infringement-8122/
Having read some of the comments made by Pixabay contributors on your link I am dumbfounded how naive these people really are and lacking in awareness that copyright infringement is theft.
They don't deserve to be called image producers or photographers :(
-
At least this issue is gaining some awareness from Pixabay contributors.
https://pixabay.com/forum/chitchat-pixabay-related-or-not-14/interesting-article-about-copyright-infringement-8122/
Having read some of the comments made by Pixabay contributors on your link I am dumbfounded how naive these people really are and lacking in awareness that copyright infringement is theft.
They don't deserve to be called image producers or photographers :(
And the usual everything is free there are no rights people, to justify that why they steal images, change them and upload to pixbay. Call intellectual property not property that can't be stolen. We can understand a thief and they justify their actions by poor ideology excuses. Alex is right, if a blogger can't afford $1 we are in trouble and so are they. I will not give away my pictures.
-
Just found another free place that I never heard of before. I was reading an article, Blog, and saw the credits. All but one Unsplash
The site landing page says, Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most generous community of photographers.
License
All photos published on Unsplash can be used for free. You can use them for commercial and noncommercial purposes. You do not need to ask permission from or provide credit to the photographer or Unsplash, although it is appreciated when possible.
More precisely, Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service.
Pretty much you can do anything, except copy to another free service? Very sad.
I was going to join and upload some Crapstock there, just for fun. Even that I'm against giving away for free.
-
More like "Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most naive community of photographers."
-
More like "Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most naive community of photographers."
That's what the owners of the site are saying while they make money from free exposure uploads.
Hey someone help me, I don't want to be the devil sign + guy ;)
Heart Collection:
+666
Thanks, I've been saved. 8)
-
More like "Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most naive community of photographers."
More like "Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most naive community of photographers morons " ::)
-
More like "Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most naive community of photographers."
More like "Beautiful, free photos. Gifted by the world’s most naive community of photographers morons " ::)
I have to agree with this statement, most of them offer unreleased content with visible brands, logos etc. for commercial use.
-
I've reported my fair share of infringers over the years and the process has gotten slightly more complicated. I appreciate all the work you've done in getting all these infringers' portfolio taken down, but I think the few legit portfolios that was affected gave SS second thoughts about this process. It opened them to facing potential lawsuits. It just takes one to throw a spanner into the system and it blows up, and I think that's the case here.
I don't think anyone is happy with the new reporting process, but DMCA notices are probably the safest route for them. It protects them legally because the copyright holder that is filing the claim is legally liable if they make a false claim. Once you create a DMCA template, the process can be just as quick as before.
-
Spent just 30 mins and already spotted some 15 thieves, including these geniuses:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/karachi-sindh-pakistan-may-31-2018-1101771029?src=gW2s6BjR-o8_aY0xI0kRUw-1-2 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/karachi-sindh-pakistan-may-31-2018-1101771029?src=gW2s6BjR-o8_aY0xI0kRUw-1-2)
-
It's a sickness? in order 1 - 10
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDRkKBH4/ss-copies-waves-sunset.jpg)
1101771029 Syeda Kulsoom (8 )
1277732206 Doni Asparingga (120)
1299157720 NI3EN (2)
1174873663 Chrysanthem (0)
1146621716 Rb Gowthamon (66)
456947011 Sebastian Voortman (28)
1287319801 Akash Srivastav (54)
1233320311 404 error
1245865771 Alex-Photography (519)
719612071 fatchul (0)
-
It's a sickness? in order 1 - 10
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDRkKBH4/ss-copies-waves-sunset.jpg)
1101771029 Syeda Kulsoom (8 )
1277732206 Doni Asparingga (120)
1299157720 NI3EN (2)
1174873663 Chrysanthem (0)
1146621716 Rb Gowthamon (66)
456947011 Sebastian Voortman (28)
1287319801 Akash Srivastav (54)
1233320311 404 error
1245865771 Alex-Photography (519)
719612071 fatchul (0)
Pretty confident that https://www.shutterstock.com/g/sebastianvoortman (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/sebastianvoortman) is the copyright owner as he's got many legitimate model-released images. What are the chances he wakes up to see his image has been stolen and files a claim? That's the only way SS have made it possible to wack these moles.
-
.
-
It appears they took your thread down at ShutterStock. :( :(
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97032-name-your-ss-copyright-thief-mole-of-the-day/
-
It appears they took your thread down at ShutterStock. :( :(
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97032-name-your-ss-copyright-thief-mole-of-the-day/
Disappointing yet expected.
-
Unbelievable, but believable
Know what I mean?
-
Well someone have to say if not pay "thank you Alex for your time". You could do so many things from work to spare free time for your own rest or enjoyment and you only got " thank you" and frustrating threds deletions.
Here is an idea.
Make a Patreon profile and get people to pay a monthly subscription to get updated profiles of thieves. It is one thing to help or inform the community and another to work for free and see your efforts to be deleted in a snap.
-
I recently found a person stealing much of my work and uploaded in his portfolio.
Having sent a DMCA to SS, they did took action but... but they only deleted the mentioned images which I complained for, the profile is still active.
I complained for about 10-12 images as a ref out of 100s and they only took action for complained images. I mentioned in the DMCA that the entire portfolio is full of copyrighted content.
Its little worrying that company don't respects artists.
-
It appears they took your thread down at ShutterStock. :( :(
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97032-name-your-ss-copyright-thief-mole-of-the-day/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97032-name-your-ss-copyright-thief-mole-of-the-day/)
Disappointing yet expected.
You want something done? Send a PM direct to Jon Oringer on facebook
It seems to be the only way to get anything done these days and shoot him some examples
https://www.facebook.com/joringer (https://www.facebook.com/joringer)
-
Good tips above.
I'll put together a YT video soon.
Need to tell the whole story from the beginning and then share it with their top management so they take action.
At the moment, they rather sweep this under the carpet...until it blows up...
-
.
Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.
I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.
While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.
-
I recently found a person stealing much of my work and uploaded in his portfolio.
Having sent a DMCA to SS, they did took action but... but they only deleted the mentioned images which I complained for, the profile is still active.
I complained for about 10-12 images as a ref out of 100s and they only took action for complained images. I mentioned in the DMCA that the entire portfolio is full of copyrighted content.
Its little worrying that company don't respects artists.
Based on my own experience, they seem to have kind of strike rule. If 1 person submit a DMCA takedown letter against a contributor, SS usually take the images down. If 2 or more people submit DMCA takedown letters against the same contributor, they usually take the entire portfolio down.
-
.
Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.
I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.
While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.
Gotta imagine some parts of the landscape, tree placement, tree size, foliage, even the flow of the river, would look a little, if not dramatically different than it did in 1942 when Ansel Adams took that image. Not to mention the shadows, reflections, lighting, ripples in the water, etc. Unless this Shutterstock contributor took this image around 80 years ago and in the exact same spot at the exact same time of day, I'm not buying this theory. The Shutterstock image replaced the clouds from the Ansel Adams shot and darkened the rest.
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
-
.
Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.
I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.
While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.
Gotta imagine some parts of the landscape, tree placement, tree size, foliage, even the flow of the river, would look a little, if not dramatically different than it did in 1942 when Ansel Adams took that image. Not to mention the shadows, reflections, lighting, ripples in the water, etc. Unless this Shutterstock contributor took this image around 80 years ago and in the exact same spot at the exact same time of day, I'm not buying this theory. The Shutterstock image replaced the clouds from the Ansel Adams shot and darkened the rest.
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:
http://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1502016-2.jpg (http://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1502016-2.jpg)
There was no cloud replacement or alterations. Brasilnut compared the wrong image.
-
double post.
-
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:
FML, worse than I thought.
-
The Ansel Adams image of the grand Tetons, with altered clouds
https://www.doi.gov/photos/news/photos/Ansel-Adams-Mural-Project-Opens-at-Interior-Department (https://www.doi.gov/photos/news/photos/Ansel-Adams-Mural-Project-Opens-at-Interior-Department)
While it is public domain, SS stopped accepting those around 2012 images numbered 100,000,000 and lower would be before that "No public domain" accepted rule.
It is an Ansel Adams photo, it is owned by the United States and is public domain. There is of course the whole new case where someone is filing against Getty for licensing PD images and charging a fee, claiming the rights.
-
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:
FML, worse than I thought.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle)
Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.
Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?
:(
-
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:
FML, worse than I thought.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle)
Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.
Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?
:(
They don't have rules only legalese, that's merely a get out clause so they can pass the buck to the uploader if the shite hits the fan.
-
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:
FML, worse than I thought.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle)
Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.
Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?
:(
To both of you, but yours because it directly points at their own rules.
If the image was before they started enforcing"their own rules" which are not legally accurate, then that's part of the problem. They used to accept PD images, then they decided not to. But the law is (at the present) you or I can license a PD image if we want, even if, easiest example, it's a NASA photo paid for by the taxpayers of the USA.
I always wanted to ask, what if someone outside of the US wants to reproduce that same image and they aren't a taxpayer? :)
Simple as is is, public domain, means no copyright. And no copyright means someone can make copies. So I can print a book or make copies of a photo, same thing, or sell the digital copies of a book or photo, which is unprotected.
SS has decided not to accept out of copyright materials. I think this is a wise decision, because 1,000 people or 10,000 people could all upload the same relatively unlimited supply of unprotected images, over, and over. Then what would the collection become? We can all see how spam and similars and duplicates are a problem. Now add, that anyone anywhere can legally submit every photo, published in the USA, before 1924. (before someone starts nit picking, I added the word published, which is very important to the statement)
Every image ever published in the US before 1924 is public domain. Someone interested could open and agency, hosting only those images, and probably do just fine. No royalties, no licensing, nothing. 100% PD images for license. That's not all. Anything paid for by the government, is free to use. Unrenewed copyrights, free to use. Never registered, free to use.
-
Is this or isn't this permitted?
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/scary-halloween-image-created-images-taken-1217606062?src=oS_EueLhBkXv_Lo7_Gfq1g-1-5 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/scary-halloween-image-created-images-taken-1217606062?src=oS_EueLhBkXv_Lo7_Gfq1g-1-5)
-
Is this or isn't this permitted?
I am shocked. Do they really have human reviewers?
This is definitely not allowed.
-
Is this or isn't this permitted?
I am shocked. Do they really have human reviewers?
This is definitely not allowed.
A decent robot would spot it. I'm convinced some contributors are simply "waved through" the system.
-
I just deleted 2700 clips off Shutterstock and terminated my account with them, $1000 a month that will hopefully shift over to other agencies.
They were repeatedly allowing the same Russian thief to upload and sell my premium clips, stonewalled me when I requested information on how many times the stolen content had licensed, refused to even have a conversation about how to try and stop this problem and chose to honour the rights of the thief over the victim in refusing to give me the user details of the thief (like email address, name etc so I could pursue them.) It was against their "privacy policy."
An absolute scumbag company without an ounce of morality - I couldn't in good conscience continue to license my work through them. It felt extremely satisfying deleting my portfolio there.
I've registered all my works with the US copyright office and next time there's an infringement lawyers will be involved.
-
I just deleted 2700 clips off Shutterstock and terminated my account with them, $1000 a month that will hopefully shift over to other agencies.
They were repeatedly allowing the same Russian thief to upload and sell my premium clips, stonewalled me when I requested information on how many times the stolen content had licensed, refused to even have a conversation about how to try and stop this problem and chose to honour the rights of the thief over the victim in refusing to give me the user details of the thief (like email address, name etc so I could pursue them.) It was against their "privacy policy."
An absolute scumbag company without an ounce of morality - I couldn't in good conscience continue to license my work through them. It felt extremely satisfying deleting my portfolio there.
I've registered all my works with the US copyright office and next time there's an infringement lawyers will be involved.
That is just disgusting behavior on their part. Good for you for ending your relationship with them. I know it can’t be easy giving up money like that...it never is, for anyone. Just shows how greed corrupts ethics. What do they care, they make money off you, or the thieves, all the same to them.
-
I just deleted 2700 clips off Shutterstock and terminated my account with them, $1000 a month that will hopefully shift over to other agencies.
They were repeatedly allowing the same Russian thief to upload and sell my premium clips, stonewalled me when I requested information on how many times the stolen content had licensed, refused to even have a conversation about how to try and stop this problem and chose to honour the rights of the thief over the victim in refusing to give me the user details of the thief (like email address, name etc so I could pursue them.) It was against their "privacy policy."
An absolute scumbag company without an ounce of morality - I couldn't in good conscience continue to license my work through them. It felt extremely satisfying deleting my portfolio there.
I've registered all my works with the US copyright office and next time there's an infringement lawyers will be involved.
That is just disgusting behavior on their part. Good for you for ending your relationship with them. I know it can’t be easy giving up money like that...it never is, for anyone. Just shows how greed corrupts ethics. What do they care, they make money off you, or the thieves, all the same to them.
Thanks! It wasn't an easy decision but the feeling of disgust was really burning deep inside of me and actually making me feel really down and out (I'm usually extremely positive person and blessed to not get depressed etc.) Along with the royalty cut at Pond5 it was a nerve wracking couple of weeks but now I'm very comfortable with everything.
Decided to turn a bad situation into a good one (hopefully.) Raised my prices on Pond5 / my own website etc (since they can't be found cheaply on SS any more.)
But yeah, they're a rotten company devoid of ethics.
-
oops wrong thread.
-
I just deleted 2700 clips off Shutterstock and terminated my account with them, $1000 a month that will hopefully shift over to other agencies.
I believe that would have been an extremely difficult decision to make but it's understandable. It's pretty sickening how sometimes, it can appear like SS are protecting their thieves. Would be good if you share your account of what happened on more public platforms like facebook and youtube. Or maybe even get the press involved. Would be good to cast a big spotlight over SS' sinful practices for the world to see.
-
I would be interested to know what happens if you ever get the chance to pursue someone via lawyer for misuse/thief of images.
I don’t hear of too many successful pursuits in this area, which is why I think that many contributers are resigned to stay with micros like SS even though they have a could care less attitude.
Respect for taking a bold move like this, and wishing you success.
-
I would be interested to know what happens if you ever get the chance to pursue someone via lawyer for misuse/thief of images.
I don’t hear of too many successful pursuits in this area, which is why I think that many contributers are resigned to stay with micros like SS even though they have a could care less attitude.
Respect for taking a bold move like this, and wishing you success.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if any successful action would include a non-disclosure agreement unfortunately. Personally I wouldn't allow them in any circumstances.
-
I would be interested to know what happens if you ever get the chance to pursue someone via lawyer for misuse/thief of images.
I don’t hear of too many successful pursuits in this area, which is why I think that many contributers are resigned to stay with micros like SS even though they have a could care less attitude.
Respect for taking a bold move like this, and wishing you success.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if any successful action would include a non-disclosure agreement unfortunately. Personally I wouldn't allow them in any circumstances.
What SS don't want is the extent of thievery being disclosed in the public sphere as has been done. Although it's understandable that they wish to product their interests, it shows their lack of transparency and conservatism.
With the above in mind, I've made a proposal to them to help wack those moles and keep it out of record, even going as far as signing a NDA. Waiting for an answer but have no expectations. This would, in my opinion, be a fair compromise and help to achieve some of the aims set out in the original wackamole thread.
-
Contributors aren’t interested in public shaming the thieves, they are interested in protecting their property. SS has forced the public shaming because they ignore emails about thieves, and don’t take DMCA reports seriously. Heck, they won’t even fix the holes in their own software that allows the thieves to get the free high rez images! Nobody cares how they choose to handle the thieves, they just actually need to fix it!
-
I would be interested to know what happens if you ever get the chance to pursue someone via lawyer for misuse/thief of images.
I don’t hear of too many successful pursuits in this area, which is why I think that many contributers are resigned to stay with micros like SS even though they have a could care less attitude.
Respect for taking a bold move like this, and wishing you success.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if any successful action would include a non-disclosure agreement unfortunately. Personally I wouldn't allow them in any circumstances.
What SS don't want is the extent of thievery being disclosed in the public sphere as has been done. Although it's understandable that they wish to product their interests, it shows their lack of transparency and conservatism.
With the above in mind, I've made a proposal to them to help wack those moles and keep it out of record, even going as far as signing a NDA. Waiting for an answer but have no expectations. This would, in my opinion, be a fair compromise and help to achieve some of the aims set out in the original wackamole thread.
Rather than worrying about thievery being disclosed... they should content match their existing online content and close out the thieves.
-
Browsing Pixabay where Adobe and SS are sponsors I came across this one...not on SS but on Adobe with 5900 images. It was funny because the shot on Pixabay showed up in the large open window and the smaller (same) shot showed up in the smaller Adobe sponsored window. Pixabay showing camera used, date shot and a larger file size than the copy at Adobe.....must be simple for Adobe to check.
Edit: Pixabay upload 2013 and Adobe upload around end 2016 start 2017. Methinks 'Goldencow' needs a further look!
https://pixabay.com/photos/niagara-falls-waterfall-water-power-218591/
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201249961/goldencow-images?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=127864673
-
Browsing Pixabay where Adobe and SS are sponsors I came across this one...not on SS but on Adobe with 5900 images. It was funny because the shot on Pixabay showed up in the large open window and the smaller (same) shot showed up in the smaller Adobe sponsored window. Pixabay showing camera used, date shot and a larger file size than the copy at Adobe.....must be simple for Adobe to check.
Edit: Pixabay upload 2013 and Adobe upload around end 2016 start 2017. Methinks 'Goldencow' needs a further look!
https://pixabay.com/photos/niagara-falls-waterfall-water-power-218591/
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201249961/goldencow-images?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=127864673
Odd isn't that. I see loads of common Microstock images, isolations, kids, bubble people, and then scattered, "World Traveler" scenic shots. I wonder why someone would risk their whole account, for a few images that are borrowed? What I mean is, doesn't look the like most of the account is recycled from others original works. ;)
Looking did make me ask, where did the subject contents of the bubble people props come from. Certainly not all his? Is that allowed? Like can I take a violin illustration from someone else, add a little bubble man (sorry for not knowing the proper term for those ubiquitous figures) and now I have an image I can upload? Isn't that re-use and not allowed?
13,200 results for niagara falls ;D
SS = 25,047 niagara falls stock photos
-
My thoughts on his portfolio too. It's a big port to risk for the sake of a few shots of somewhere he's never been. There are so many Pilsbury Doughboyz and surrogates out there that I'm not even going to look.....I think that the originator of that character was a Greek guy. He must have made a few hundred grand with it in the time before everyone copied it.
Even so, I really have to wonder abour that Niagara falls shot...it's really very good and looking at the rest of the port on Pixabay (only 12 photo's!), it's OK but not that great. She's had 79,000 downloads of which that one shot has been downloaded 75,000 times. Everything else seems to tally though if you look at her profile and camera used so maybe she did originate the shot.
What is absolutely certain is that 'Goldencow' didn't.
BTW, found it again on another free site ABSfreepic:
-
You do know that every time you post a clickable link, you are actually helping the thieves. And then someone quotes the post, and doubles the help. Make it so the links to these thieves’ ports are not clickable. Thanks!
-
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?
-
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?
SEO
example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com
-
Anybody working with Unsplash/Pexels/Pixabay is indirectly aiding and abetting criminal activity. Now we have Canva partnering up with them and spinning like it's such a great deal for us!
-
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?
SEO
example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com
Don't see a lot of people doing that. I'll just not post....it's easier!
Don't know if it's true anyway as I'm not an expert: Defer to Chichikov:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349)
-
Anybody working with Unsplash/Pexels/Pixabay is indirectly aiding and abetting criminal activity. Now we have Canva partnering up with them and spinning like it's such a great deal for us!
SS and Adobe are doing that with Pixabay by sponsoring them with advertising.
-
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?
SEO
example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com
Don't see a lot of people doing that. I'll just not post....it's easier!
Don't know if it's true anyway as I'm not an expert: Defer to Chichikov:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349)
He needs to do a little more searching. I get an error when I click your link.
-
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?
SEO
example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com
Don't see a lot of people doing that. I'll just not post....it's easier!
Don't know if it's true anyway as I'm not an expert: Defer to Chichikov:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349)
Is he an expert?
-
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?
SEO
example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com
Don't see a lot of people doing that. I'll just not post....it's easier!
Don't know if it's true anyway as I'm not an expert: Defer to Chichikov:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349)
Is he an expert?
This is to where the link was supposed to direct:
Chichikov
Aparently not but who is?
"It is a (half) myth!
Apparently you repeat what you have read (like many others), but you don't really know how SEO works, and how a website rises in the rankings.
I often wonder why people who know nothing about it should feel compelled to peddle false information!
There are different opinions, on the part of SEO experts, that clicking on a link improves the ranking in search engine results.
According to few experts, this would place the site at a higher level;
According to others, this would only have an effect if the clicks are very numerous and repeated, and over a long period of time (several months, even several years).
Do you really think that the users who visited this thread and clicked on the links had a tangible effect on improving the ranking of these sites?
Still according to experts who say that clicks have an effect on site ranking, this effect would be so minimal that it is not worth considering, whether it is millions or billions of clicks...
And according to other experts, this would have no effect at all.
In fact, it seems that Google no longer takes clicks on url into account for ranking, since a many years now, to avoid the effect of click generators.
Do a research on the subject and you will find different theses on this subject, theses confirming it and theses invalidating it.
In fact, search engines are very secretive about how their algorithms work, and even the SEO experts are not so sure how it really works.....
That being said, I'm not an expert, but I'm sure you're far from being one too........"
Microstock's time has passed. It was good while it lasted and used to provide a reasonable supplemental income for a reasonable investment of effort. Now it doesn't (with still photo's, vectors etc). Agency greed, easing of standards, theft, free sites and the need to feed yo' Instagram page have caused disruptions in the status quo for MS'ers just as MS did in the early 2000s to the established stockphoto business. It's over and time to move on to something else. Attempting to hold back the flood of free or stolen by rendering unclickable links is, to my mind, like King Canute trying to command the tide to go back (prolly didn't do that really but you get my drift). :)
-
So not an expert. Just bloviating on the subject. He/she posted that big long dissertation on SEO ... bottom line: it might help SEO, it might not. So let’s err on the side of NOT helping thieves.
“According to few experts, this would place the site at a higher level;” As quoted by the non-expert.
-
This is great (in a tragic way).
One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-600w-1379276279.jpg)
Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics. All of which are stolen.
Im just waiting for tank man or afghan girl to make an appearance.
-
This is great (in a tragic way).
One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-600w-1379276279.jpg)
Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics. All of which are stolen.
Im just waiting for tank man or afghan girl to make an appearance.
when I clicked on the thum and got to this page,
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/life-sharks-1374920003?src=7DmC1syihrU5bcN3A0OdVw-1-7 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/life-sharks-1374920003?src=7DmC1syihrU5bcN3A0OdVw-1-7)
There was a link to the same photo by another contributor:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/great-white-sharks-by-watersurface-view-634686533 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/great-white-sharks-by-watersurface-view-634686533)
Does SS take any action if someone other than the copyright owner points out these abuses?
-
Sadly they seem to refuse to do anything except a per individual photo report.
So there's no system for reporting mass stolen portfolios and it would need the original copyright holder to be identified and individually report each image.
-
They did take down that Ansel Adam's iconic shot after I shamed them on social media. They will make exceptions.
My level of apathy towards this issue has reached a new all-time high. If they don't care, why should I?
Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!
-
Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!
I tweeted him (I think, I hardly use Twitter!), I have no skin in SS to worry about.
-
They did take down that Ansel Adam's iconic shot after I shamed them on social media. They will make exceptions.
My level of apathy towards this issue has reached a new all-time low. If they don't care, why should I?
Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!
Not long ago I did just that with an account on SS that was selling stills from Dustin Farrell time lapses. Contacted Dustin and let him know what was going on. I felt he had an absolute right to know. He was extremely appreciative (as would I be if the shoe were on the other foot).
I understand your apathy but I think the only way SS will ever put an end to this once and for all is if enough external pressure as possible is applied. One way to accomplish this is by letting well known copyright holders in particular know about infringements taking place on the site. After all, they are the ones in the best position to affect change - with the resources and influence to bring this issue to light in a more public way.
It is abundantly clear to me now that SS no longer has the best interests of contributors or even the industry as a whole in mind; clearly evidenced by their refusal to remove accounts known to contain demonstrably infringing content. Opting instead to straddle the thin legal line of DMCA language which allows them to conveniently ignore illegal content unless notified by the copyright holder exclusively. Shameful.
Obviously contributors no longer matter nor do the rights of content creators outside of their platform, but I am willing to bet that buyers still matter. And the more buyers that can be made aware of Shutterstock's rapid decline into the Pirate Bay of microstock the better in my opinion.
-
It is abundantly clear to me now that SS no longer has the best interests of contributors or even the industry as a whole in mind;
Obviously contributors no longer matter nor do the rights of content creators outside of their platform,
They never had our interests in mind. It's a big multi-million dollar corporation with clockwork monkeys with no authority, responsibility or care about the industry as a whole. The only thing that matters is the bottom line, i.e. shareholders' revenue.
-
Logically, it is a download of an image that is not with the right rights to the sale, or with a million images, affects the pie to distribute among the creators. True. But it is something temporary, soon it will be something ephemeral, a memory this topic.
A campaign of an important company, with a theoretically legal license for that campaign, and a file that lacks the appropriate rights, and the courts will speak. From that moment, it will be a memory.
In addition, it is a matter of time that the EU law that makes companies responsible for ensuring and protecting each stored file ensures itself as directly responsible for verifying and putting all means at their disposal to protect copyright. They have a deadline to invest material, technology and resources to ensure that all the content displayed on the internet has the right to exhibit. A company that is also your business, will need many resources to ensure that the archives have appropriate and timely rights.
We cannot carry a backpack with a weight that does not correspond with us. It should not be a problem for us, more than temporary. In case it is true that there are images with licenses of rights not valid in the agency, which are generating a benefit, it will be a problem that will cost them a lot to recover, after the sanctions and compensate the damage to the affected ones.
It's a matter of time. It is temporary for us, for the agencies, bread for today, hunger for tomorrow.
The companies are responsible for ensuring copyright. It does not serve any norms, regulations and internal customs nor clauses of responsibility to third parties,......... they stop having value before a Law and a judge.
And this must be our position, those affected are the agencies, not us. To study, to ignore the law does not exempt them from responsibility.
-
Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!
Yesterday I sent him an email with the links
-
It is abundantly clear to me now that SS no longer has the best interests of contributors or even the industry as a whole in mind;
Obviously contributors no longer matter nor do the rights of content creators outside of their platform,
They never had our interests in mind. It's a big multi-million dollar corporation with clockwork monkeys with no authority, responsibility or care about the industry as a whole. The only thing that matters is the bottom line, i.e. shareholders' revenue.
I get what you are saying but to be fair I can recall a time when even the hint of copyright infringement was taken very seriously by SS. With entire portfolios subject to immediate suspension while a thorough investigation was initiated. Those days are gone. Part of my point was that there was a time when the interests of both agencies and contributors were much more in line - with their success tied directly to ours and vice versa. Now it is just a crap show where even fundamental concepts like copyright are ignored with impunity.
-
The "TudoVale" is all worth it, it is a martial art, where it has its rules, and EVERYTHING IS NOT VALID.
The USA gives priority to the rights of individuals and transferred to business, grants rights to companies.
Receiving a reward for work is a fundamental right in business.
USA is not alien to the rights to be current in its OBLIGATIONS, and it is very hard when it enters to sanction with dollars. Very hard.
It is not our problem.
-
If there are portfolios with fraudulent files, if it is better generalized, the more channels exist, the problem is solved first. If two channels are closed, that 200 new portfolios appear is the best way for the problem to go away.
I put myself in the client's place, and I think that the fear of accessing something that may not be valid, only gives me the possibility of accessing new markets with a guarantee that what I acquire is valid. We must not do the work or solve the problems of the agencies, they, the agencies know what they have to do, they will do it. In addition, they must communicate to customers, by obligation, that they have acquired fraudulent licenses. They can not look the other way.
It is a very serious problem for the agencies that must solve and they will do it in case there are stolen and copyrighted files.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
If there are portfolios with fraudulent files, if it is better generalized, the more channels exist, the problem is solved first. If two channels are closed, that 200 new portfolios appear is the best way for the problem to go away.
I put myself in the client's place, and I think that the fear of accessing something that may not be valid, only gives me the possibility of accessing new markets with a guarantee that what I acquire is valid. We must not do the work or solve the problems of the agencies, they, the agencies know what they have to do, they will do it. In addition, they must communicate to customers, by obligation, that they have acquired fraudulent licenses. They can not look the other way.
It is a very serious problem for the agencies that must solve and they will do it in case there are stolen and copyrighted files.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
All very natural assumptions to make, but unfortunately not necessarily the case. You have to remember that ultimately buyers are licensing these files in "good faith" from an agency that has agreed to represent these files in "good faith" from contributors who have contractually sworn to the fact that they either own or legally represent the copyright for these files. In other words in the event of litigation it could be successfully argued that neither the buyer nor the agency have acted inappropriately and therefore the only accountable party is the fraudulent contributor. Fraudulent contributors incidentally who overwhelmingly hail from countries which do not have reciprocal IP treaties with the US and who would be incredibly difficult and costly to prosecute.
I am confident by now that SS have done their risk assessments and cost benefit analysis to the nth degree and have settled on a formula which leaves them maximum profit at minimum legal exposure. So yes, I do think it is our problem since the only ones this really affects are the little guys like David Slater who by his own admission doesn't have two sticks to rub together let alone the resources to take on a multi-national corporation.
-
This is great (in a tragic way).
One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-600w-1379276279.jpg)
Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics. All of which are stolen.
Im just waiting for tank man or afghan girl to make an appearance.
This ultra famous black macaque monkey from Indonesia in now a grey gorilla from Africa, or is it a bird? So much for keywords on Shutterstock.
This must be one of the most reported copyright cases the world has ever known. This image has appeared on every major and minor news channel, not once, but several times during the court case and shared by all and sundry on social media. Yet, it still remains on Shutterstock despite being informed of the infringement, it beggars belief.
-
If there are portfolios with fraudulent files, if it is better generalized, the more channels exist, the problem is solved first. If two channels are closed, that 200 new portfolios appear is the best way for the problem to go away.
I put myself in the client's place, and I think that the fear of accessing something that may not be valid, only gives me the possibility of accessing new markets with a guarantee that what I acquire is valid. We must not do the work or solve the problems of the agencies, they, the agencies know what they have to do, they will do it. In addition, they must communicate to customers, by obligation, that they have acquired fraudulent licenses. They can not look the other way.
It is a very serious problem for the agencies that must solve and they will do it in case there are stolen and copyrighted files.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
All very natural assumptions to make, but unfortunately not necessarily the case. You have to remember that ultimately buyers are licensing these files in "good faith" from an agency that has agreed to represent these files in "good faith" from contributors who have contractually sworn to the fact that they either own or legally represent the copyright for these files. In other words in the event of litigation it could be successfully argued that neither the buyer nor the agency have acted inappropriately and therefore the only accountable party is the fraudulent contributor. Fraudulent contributors incidentally who overwhelmingly hail from countries which do not have reciprocal IP treaties with the US and who would be incredibly difficult and costly to prosecute.
I am confident by now that SS have done their risk assessments and cost benefit analysis to the nth degree and have settled on a formula which leaves them maximum profit at minimum legal exposure. So yes, I do think it is our problem since the only ones this really affects are the little guys like David Slater who by his own admission doesn't have two sticks to rub together let alone the resources to take on a multi-national corporation.
We all know the history of illegal downloads. We know the history of those who seemed untouchable at a very hard time for the music industry or the movies.
The laws are no longer set so much in the downloads, now a target is set, the uploads, Responsible, anyone who does not monitor for their stored material, and may cause harm, for example, for reasons of copyright. Has a lawyer, or a thousand law firms of expert lawyers. Responsibility, the web that stores and exposes files without ensuring copyright, with a period of adaptation that is underway, and with adequate time for them to execute the labor.
By much good faith agreement that exists. It is no longer about faith, but reality, they must and are obliged to ensure compliance and the obligation not to store files that violate copyright. If it's a problem for google, YouTube, Facebook, .......... etc. Agencies can already be strong, and an army of attorneys' eminent, to get rid of respecting the rights of authorship Microstock Agencies, sheltering in contracts of good faith.
We directly affect contributors today, currently, temporarily. The problem is with the Agencies, a very serious problem.
I do not have the power of divination in the event that a "contract of good faith" exempts the agencies from unlawful enrichment in a court of law.
Here, it is making public the possible notice to the Agencies, of the possible damage on copyright on some files.
This thread must be placed fixed, with thumbtack, in the forum. To keep it strong, and reach the largest possible number of readers.
Once you lose trust in your partner, family, vehicle, company, residential area, supermarket, city, country, ..... you do not recover so easily. Security, an intangible good that lacks value until it is lacking. An important blog linking to this thread, an important means of communication reflecting our concerns, and regain the trust of customers towards the "good faith" of an Agency, will be an impossible stigma to overcome.
The real problem, the one that will pay, is the Agency. And so we must transmit it in each post of this thread to the world. The responsible to their clients is the Agency, always. We are collateral damage, passenger.
We move between peanuts, the real problem is for those who move the dollars.
It does not matter if they come from countries without laws, if they are criminal organizations, the same agency or a teenager without resources. All the same, the one that is going to pay the consequences, is the Agency, always, as long as they do not solve the problem.
The favor, you owe it to your clients. The favor is due to your peace of mind. The favor they owe to themselves, we are not the real ones affected. The agencies are the victims of this big problem, which they will solve, very soon.
-
It's sad too because it puts real Buyers in jeopardy. They assume if they are buying the image from Shutterstock (a professional company) with the proper license, it must be a legitimate legal purchase. They can use it according to the license terms but then get slammed with a lawsuit because they don't actually have the rights to use the stolen photo.
-
This is great (in a tragic way).
One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-600w-1379276279.jpg)
Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics. All of which are stolen.
Something is happening: the pic is still on sale as of 2203 BST, but there is no photographer credited. After "By:" the alleged author's name is blanked out. Hopefully they would give the actual author any royalties raised. But still, without his permission, they can't sell it. Unless he contacted them and they persuaded him to sign up (but in that case, his name should be credited).
-
No the monkey has gone now
"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"
What makes me curdle is that they can obviously spot "similar" images uploaded by a contributor as I've had a few rejections recently but they aren't smart enough to spot similars across the database?
-
No the monkey has gone now
"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"
Oh, I'm still getting it with the name blanked out, both on FF after three refreshes and in Edge with all cookies/history deleted:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5xe1c1i1nmnwzk/MonkeySelfieSS.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5xe1c1i1nmnwzk/MonkeySelfieSS.jpg?dl=0)
Maybe different servers updating at different times?
-
This is great (in a tragic way).
One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-600w-1379276279.jpg)
Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics. All of which are stolen.
Something is happening: the pic is still on sale as of 2203 BST, but there is no photographer credited. After "By:" the alleged author's name is blanked out. Hopefully they would give the actual author any royalties raised. But still, without his permission, they can't sell it. Unless he contacted them and they persuaded him to sign up (but in that case, his name should be credited).
The best thing that can happen to everyone is that there are no sales. Financial operation in law fraud. You must contact all affected parties and determine a solution agreed with each affected party.
Take note of the fact. Communicate it to the competent authority.
I am convinced that they have been there for a long time...
with the analysis, study, and protocol of action for the new cases that are detected.
A department that evaluates the situation. Deciding the measures to take. And analyzing the results obtained in each activated plan.
All this, someone will ask sooner or later, to which they will have to give answers.
Surely they are ready to explain when they have knowledge of the situation, the measures taken and the result of the measures applied.
And sure that by allocating a percentage of the billing before the possibility of new agreements with affected futures, claims and / or economic sanctions.
-
I think using Google translate is not helping to get your point across Tenebroso :(
Sorry but your posts are very difficult to understand
-
No the monkey has gone now
"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"
Received this email yesterday.
"Thanks, Alexandre. We appreciate you alerting us to this issue. Please know that this portfolio was reported earlier to our team, and has been suspended.
IP Team
Shutterstock, Inc."
-
Monkey pic is still 'up' and visible from here, with name blanked.
-
Sammy the Cat, I understand you very well.
Customers pay for a guarantee that gives them the peace of mind of using files with guarantees and without any mishap. This tranquility of purchase, can be reduced by a fact that points directly to the epicenter of the business in which agencies work, providing images for the correct work of each client.
Given the possibility of an immense unstoppable snowball, with alleged fraudulent images, before the possibility that a YouTuber in search of votes and thousands of visits makes a video of some images put up for sale in an agency, before the possibility of articles In specialized blogs, local press and national news, in view of this possibility, I am convinced that soon they will give an official statement alleging the appropriate clarifications in this regard, and the agency will publicly thank each user who has disinterestedly collaborated in detecting this possible infringement.
They must move very fast, any day, the customer en masse, can choose to find an agency that gives real guarantees of purchase.
This issue is a very damaging topic for an agency, if the client perceives that what he buys may or may not be optimal for his work.
-
Monkey pic is still 'up' and visible from here, with name blanked.
Name is blanked, but clickable, but when you click on it, it shows "Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections."
-
No the monkey has gone now
"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"
Received this email yesterday.
"Thanks, Alexandre. We appreciate you alerting us to this issue. Please know that this portfolio was reported earlier to our team, and has been suspended.
IP Team
Shutterstock, Inc."
Which begs the question why was the offending portfolio still up many hours after you alerted them?
-
You'd like to think theres a reviewer ID embedded in their database for who approved an image.
If so, you'd also like to think they can go through to see these people approving clearly stolen images/not checking similar and so on and "re-educating" them.
Then again, im fairly sure SS dont really want to do that. They've done the maths and the benefits of not bothering to check outweight the risks.
-
You'd like to think theres a reviewer ID embedded in their database for who approved an image.
If so, you'd also like to think they can go through to see these people approving clearly stolen images/not checking similar and so on and "re-educating" them.
Then again, im fairly sure SS dont really want to do that. They've done the maths and the benefits of not bothering to check outweight the risks.
No, to them, a sale is a sale. Who cares if the image is stolen. Follow the money.
-
Monkey pic is still 'up' and visible from here, with name blanked.
Name is blanked, but clickable, but when you click on it, it shows "Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections."
Right, the image database is still adjusting and updating but the "Ristic+Milos" account and all their stolen images are gone. You can't download the image.
-
This is a good one:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/owenr+osemarie?page=2&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en§ion=1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/owenr+osemarie?page=2&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en§ion=1)
Just uploading current news photos to SS and getting them accepted and sold.
A lot of the military ones appear to be stolen from an Alamy account "PJF Military Collection"
Either that or hes a really clever guy, hes in Boston, the Persian Gulf and Marshall islands on the same day.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/persian-gulfstrait-hormuz-07122019-photo-600w-1456248215.jpg)
This one appears to have been stolen off Reuters as far as i can tell.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/persian-gulfstrait-hormuz-07122019-photo-600w-1456248140.jpg)
This one was nicked from MarineTraffic.
SS may get away with reselling individual peoples stolen images but reselling illegal images from Reuters, Alamy, the US Navy and other big guns is not going to go down well. Especially as SS approved these images for sale.
-
Thanks for sharing - I've emailed [email protected] and would encourage others to do as well to pile the pressure on.
Good work
-
Photos taken on the space station. Not at all suspicious.
Not that an astronaut wouldn't have a side hobby of selling stock photos, but how could they be doing the underwater photography while they're in space?
-
Photos taken on the space station. Not at all suspicious.
Not that an astronaut wouldn't have a side hobby of selling stock photos, but how could they be doing the underwater photography while they're in space?
Whilst single handedly documenting the iran crisis.
The port is still up.
-
Original
(https://pcdn.columbian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Persian_Gulf_US_Carrier_88658.jpg-2f4fe.jpg)
2018?
Theirs
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/persian-gulfstrait-hormuz-07122019-photo-600w-1456248149.jpg)
07/12/2019 photo from Persian Gulf
Member since 7/12/2019 shouldn't get away with any stolen money if they got downloads.
-
This person's portfolio is full of stuff credited to other people - here's one that's an Associated Press photo that appeared in the Washington Post (https://wapo.st/2JE5zlD?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.7799237d96da) on July 19th:
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/persian-gulfstrait-hormuz-07122019-photo-450w-1456248125.jpg) (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/persian-gulfstrait-hormuz-07122019-photo-gulf-1456248125)
And this is an AP photo of Tokyo's olympic stadium (identical clouds in an identical position; he/she just cropped off the right side)
https://qz.com/1188832/south-koreas-100-million-winter-olympics-stadium-will-be-used-exactly-four-times/ (https://qz.com/1188832/south-koreas-100-million-winter-olympics-stadium-will-be-used-exactly-four-times/)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tokyojapan-06252019-tokyo-2020-olympic-site-1458093230?src=w9v9aahSTSN3w54x81A4ng-1-7&studio=1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tokyojapan-06252019-tokyo-2020-olympic-site-1458093230?src=w9v9aahSTSN3w54x81A4ng-1-7&studio=1)
After you find more than a few that are stolen, I think the ethical thing to do is take the whole portfolio down.
One mistake could happen - a whole bunch of obvious stolen content means SS should not sully its reputation by hosting anything from that person.
-
I'll bet $10 with anybody that this account will still be up in a week - 31 July at midnight deadline.
Bets settled via paypal.
Any takers?
-
There is no way this portfolio is a "mistake".
Every single image has been stolen from elsewhere, cropped or altered and reuploaded. Its a deliberate, entirely stolen portfolio.
Its also nowhere near the only one.
SS needs to get more proactive, instead of refusing to act until an original copyright holder complains they should actively follow up 3rd party complaints and address the whole portfolio not just a per image basis.
But at the end of the day, they needs reviewers to actual review images. I suspect most now are just AI flagged. No sensible human reviewer could have looked at these images coming through and not been suspicious.
Plus "similar images" - it SHOWS the image was stolen on the actual site but seemingly is not checked at upload time.
-
Ironically:
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content?fbclid=IwAR0tiYqNHX5ZEGGFY5FcCEf0RvAqdcHybIj8HC4MkCdzNM2O603HS6l42JQ (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content?fbclid=IwAR0tiYqNHX5ZEGGFY5FcCEf0RvAqdcHybIj8HC4MkCdzNM2O603HS6l42JQ)
-
Ironically:
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content?fbclid=IwAR0tiYqNHX5ZEGGFY5FcCEf0RvAqdcHybIj8HC4MkCdzNM2O603HS6l42JQ (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content?fbclid=IwAR0tiYqNHX5ZEGGFY5FcCEf0RvAqdcHybIj8HC4MkCdzNM2O603HS6l42JQ)
"We pride ourselves on the integrity of the content submitted by our contributors...."
Right. But that was said in 2014 - clearly a different time . . . to be judged by the standards of the day . . .
Goes along with "Your call is very important to us.."
Tossers!
-
Ironically:
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content?fbclid=IwAR0tiYqNHX5ZEGGFY5FcCEf0RvAqdcHybIj8HC4MkCdzNM2O603HS6l42JQ (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protect-your-content?fbclid=IwAR0tiYqNHX5ZEGGFY5FcCEf0RvAqdcHybIj8HC4MkCdzNM2O603HS6l42JQ)
"We pride ourselves on the integrity of the content submitted by our contributors...."
Right. But that was said in 2014 - clearly a different time . . . to be judged by the standards of the day . . .
Goes along with "Your call is very important to us.."
Tossers!
Ha! I was just going to post that first line too. What a joke they are.
-
He's adding to his portfolio. This week he's taking photos in Dubai that have been online since 2010 for example.
-
Hmm, (another learning opportunity, I had to look up the Marshall Islands):
this pic he says is in the Marshall Islands:
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/marshall-islandsoceania-07192019-photo-islands-1456912202?src=bekS6z3edwlSyJinNfKApA-2-3 (https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/marshall-islandsoceania-07192019-photo-islands-1456912202?src=bekS6z3edwlSyJinNfKApA-2-3)
is said here (and on various other sites) to be in the Caymans:
http://www.scubaverse.com/celebrating-two-iconic-shipwrecks-in-the-cayman-islands (http://www.scubaverse.com/celebrating-two-iconic-shipwrecks-in-the-cayman-islands)
This one purporting to be from the Marshall Islands last week:
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/marshall-islandsoceania-07192019-photo-islands-1456912208?src=bekS6z3edwlSyJinNfKApA-2-5 (https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/marshall-islandsoceania-07192019-photo-islands-1456912208?src=bekS6z3edwlSyJinNfKApA-2-5)
is said here and on several other sites to be on Vanautu:
http://southpacificspecialist.org/vanuatu-special-features (http://southpacificspecialist.org/vanuatu-special-features)
This one purporting to be from Kalasin Dinosaur Park in Thailand on 6th July (or 7th June) 2019
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/ni-khomthailand-07062019-photo-dinosaur-kalasin-1454860229?src=bekS6z3edwlSyJinNfKApA-2-75 (https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/ni-khomthailand-07062019-photo-dinosaur-kalasin-1454860229?src=bekS6z3edwlSyJinNfKApA-2-75)
is said here to be from the Dinosaur Valley State Park in Texas on October 1st 2016:
https://thedyrt.com/camping/texas/texas-dinosaur-valley-state-park/review/9325 (https://thedyrt.com/camping/texas/texas-dinosaur-valley-state-park/review/9325)
Makes me wonder what uprezzing software he's using.
-
is said here (and on various other sites) to be in the Caymans:
[url]http://www.scubaverse.com/celebrating-two-iconic-shipwrecks-in-the-cayman-islands[/url] ([url]http://www.scubaverse.com/celebrating-two-iconic-shipwrecks-in-the-cayman-islands[/url])
That one i can confirm first hand. Its a terrible photo of people sat on the stern of the ex USS Kittiwake. And also a minimum of 4 years old because since then the wreck has been moved and tilted over twice in storms and isnt vertical.
(Ive taken 100s of shots of that wreck through work!).
Edit:- Just read all that article, it was actually me with the guy and the last photo (diver by the stern of the wreck) is my image (not sold on or used on stock sites)
-
Looks like owenr osemarie is down.
Almost two weeks since his port was pointed out here.
Better late than never?
Wonder what measures they'll take to make sure it doesn't happen again?
-
Math 313 (3200 images) is gone very quickly. Presumably the copyright holder sent the 4 DMCA notices today!
-
And it looks like SS removed the thread(s) pointing out the thieves, again.
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
If so these people are un-believable they do nothing about theft until contributors point out the problem then delete the threads and block those identifying the issue?
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
If so these people are un-believable they do nothing about theft until contributors point out the problem then delete the threads and block those identifying the issue?
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
They've decided to up the ante in the race to become the most hated agency.
-
Shutterstock sell trust in their product, it would be severely damaging to them if it becomes widely known that their product could be severely damaging to their buyers. Seems if they can't get a grip on thieves it is only a matter of time before a buyer kicks up a fuss that gets everyone's attention. They can't keep a lid on it for ever. Why they don't act when thieves are identified is a mystery and suicidal.
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.
-
Again, just like the old iStock.
Being banned from the iStock forum was like a badge of honour, and it seems to be the same nowadays on SS.
Wear it with pride!
If they don't want to solve their problems, hell and the courts can mend 'em.
-
Suspending forum privs for a little while won't hurt you, but closing your contributor account probably would. I'm not in any way criticizing you or defending Shutterstock's pathetic lack of useful measures to prevent upload of stolen content.
I just want to remind everyone, particularly those who haven't been around the agencies for very long, that the terms under which most agencies operate allow them to close your account at any time, for any or no reason, and you have no appeal process.
Getty was the most prominent of the "crush the uppity contributors" examples when they closed several high profile accounts during the 2013 protests over the Getty-Google partnership. Fotolia (prior to the Adobe acquisition) took a similar approach.
For those who want to pursue the agencies (who clearly could use some reminders that without contributors they have nothing to sell), just be aware of what the consequences might be for your income.
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.
Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.
SS is getting worse and worse for contributers
They don’t give a rats ass about ports full of stolen images, behind the scenes sneaky snake deals like with FAA, and are very hostile in their actions towards guys like Alex.
Frankly, I am starting to despise them and hope that one day someone with deep pockets and a big reputation gets violated and angry enough to launch a successful lawsuit and have it publicized
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.
Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!
My account, which is what really matters, has been unaffected.
-
For those who want to pursue the agencies (who clearly could use some reminders that without contributors they have nothing to sell), just be aware of what the consequences might be for your income.
Being vocal when there are real possible consequences on your life/income is what separates internet warriors from people with a backbone imho
If you can be silenced by a vague threat regarding your income, you don't deserve ANY income
-
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?
I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.
Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!
My account, which is what really matters, has been unaffected.
Glad to hear that.
On a slightly different subject.....I sent an email to Adobe last night because I noticed that a contributor in the toppers of the week had a few photos in their port which looked a bit sus. One had a trademark clearly visible with a description of something else entirely and the second shot was available as a Wikimedia commons and on Unsplash. I told them of my concerns and this morning (within 12 hours) the offending photo's plus a few more that I hadn't complained about were gone from his port. The majority of his small port is still up so I presume that Adobe does want his shots of desert, camels and what appear to be North African buildings!
At least they dealt with it quickly and without demanding a DMCA (which I couldn't give as the offending photos weren't mine).
Edit: One day later and his account is 'empty'. Pointer to SS....it can be done.
-
Its still happening!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/usa-china-cooperation-concept-us-america-1255386193?src=yoMpVcfm3xD7Y2FJvb7RYQ-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/usa-china-cooperation-concept-us-america-1255386193?src=yoMpVcfm3xD7Y2FJvb7RYQ-1-1)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/usa-china-trade-relations-cooperation-strategy-792494203?src=vfx_mml1Jy0kknodjG0sug-1-88 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/usa-china-trade-relations-cooperation-strategy-792494203?src=vfx_mml1Jy0kknodjG0sug-1-88)
-
This one seems suspicious:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/airplane-crash-foggy-weather-1098082550?src=14IdjKBdgRgmqxkdLAF9GQ-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/airplane-crash-foggy-weather-1098082550?src=14IdjKBdgRgmqxkdLAF9GQ-1-1)
Has an odd (very good) mix of images combined with bad captioning and the odd weird photoshop.
The chances of this guy getting this one plane photos, uploading no others etc is slim. I cant decide if its another fake or not but its suspicious.
-
This one seems suspicious:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/airplane-crash-foggy-weather-1098082550?src=14IdjKBdgRgmqxkdLAF9GQ-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/airplane-crash-foggy-weather-1098082550?src=14IdjKBdgRgmqxkdLAF9GQ-1-1)
Has an odd (very good) mix of images combined with bad captioning and the odd weird photoshop.
The chances of this guy getting this one plane photos, uploading no others etc is slim. I cant decide if its another fake or not but its suspicious.
To me it looks like a 3D rendering.
-
It is a 3D rendering (theres a worse one with a beach and skyscrapers on it).
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/barn-owl-flight-before-attack-clean-374227486 (https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/image-photo/barn-owl-flight-before-attack-clean-374227486) I believe this is the original.
https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/barn-owl-flight-before-attack-clean-1268190808 (https://www.shutterstock.com/es/image-photo/barn-owl-flight-before-attack-clean-1268190808)
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-parrot-ara-1268188654?src=N0gsa4v9laaTnxQFOeruIA-1-15 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-parrot-ara-1268188654?src=N0gsa4v9laaTnxQFOeruIA-1-15) his
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-ara-ararauna-321332948 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-ara-ararauna-321332948) likely original
I've emailed compliance@ with the examples.
Edited:- Messed up link
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-parrot-ara-1268188654?src=N0gsa4v9laaTnxQFOeruIA-1-15 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-parrot-ara-1268188654?src=N0gsa4v9laaTnxQFOeruIA-1-15) his
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-parrot-ara-1268188654?src=N0gsa4v9laaTnxQFOeruIA-1-15 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-blue-yellow-macaw-parrot-ara-1268188654?src=N0gsa4v9laaTnxQFOeruIA-1-15) likely original
I've emailed compliance@ with the examples.
You nailed that one, the same parrot, the same image, the same contributor, the same page.
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/portrait-blueandyellow-macaw-ara-ararauna-grooming-321332948 (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/portrait-blueandyellow-macaw-ara-ararauna-grooming-321332948)
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/portrait-blueandyellow-macaw-ara-ararauna-grooming-321332948 (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/portrait-blueandyellow-macaw-ara-ararauna-grooming-321332948)
Yep i screwed up the link, have edited.
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Travel+Sync27 (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Travel+Sync27)
-
Great captions: Travel for food around the world.
I like the vegan chicken breasts.
This one is rotating and cropping which is making finding the originals a bit harder.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487622320?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-1-56 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487622320?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-1-56) his
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bruschetta-217261501 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bruschetta-217261501) <-- seems to be this one cropped and horizontally flipped.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487598902?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-2-37 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487598902?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-2-37) <-- cropped and flipped version of this:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-glasses-citrus-lemonade-red-oranges-585810986 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-glasses-citrus-lemonade-red-oranges-585810986) <--- original
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487598917?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-2-25 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487598917?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-2-25) <-- stolen
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/roasted-cherry-tomato-goats-cheese-quiche-744819217 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/roasted-cherry-tomato-goats-cheese-quiche-744819217) <--- original
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487636630?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-1-3 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/travel-food-around-world-1487636630?src=wqqqF1-m8UyzSTGwbZqjaQ-1-3) <-- stolen
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/strawberry-ice-cream-fresh-ripe-strawberries-271398206 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/strawberry-ice-cream-fresh-ripe-strawberries-271398206) <-- is the original
The close crop and 180 flip is fooling the similar search - are the indians photo-thieves evolving? Interesting profile for someone who apparently does landscape, travel and nature.
Im reporting these to [email protected] but as of yet have not received a response to any reports.
-
Within 5 mins I spotted more than dozen thieves proliferating at SS...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1)
Just follow the peach trail and it will lead you to many accounts that lead to many more into infinity...
-
Wow - so we get one of two images of the same subject rejected for being similars, but their software can't identify these?
Steve
-
Seriously why even worry about it.
Agencies like SS don't care and you'll give yourself ulcers thinking about it.
Just let SS carry on in their own stupid way until they get a slap from some lawyer
They're just idiot kids play acting business professionals.
-
Seriously why even worry about it.
Agencies like SS don't care and you'll give yourself ulcers thinking about it.
Just let SS carry on in their own stupid way until they get a slap from some lawyer
They're just idiot kids play acting business professionals.
True, at this point it's more of an ongoing gag reel.
-
They don't care about stolen photos but are mustard on stolen footage. This took a while to get up to speed but after the OP came with examples of genuine and stolen, the port of 7K videos was gone quite quickly.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/98957-marinionelamari-username-is-selling-my-videos/
-
Within 5 mins I spotted more than dozen thieves proliferating at SS...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1)
Just follow the peach trail and it will lead you to many accounts that lead to many more into infinity...
In this particular case, that image has been places in the public domain, so selling it is not illegal. But it violates SS terms, I'm sure. So it's not stolen, which is why SS probably isn't that concerned. Original image is probably this: https://pixabay.com/photos/apple-fall-juicy-food-autumn-1122537/ (https://pixabay.com/photos/apple-fall-juicy-food-autumn-1122537/)
EDIT - Saw your original post. This isn't new information.
-
A few years ago SS was talking grandly about how they were a "technology" company with a big R&D group.
I think they built a system so automated and so complicated that they can't manage it anymore; and some employees, partners and other 'insiders' have figured out how to play it. People with access are bringing in other people's stolen portfolios for a price, direct, no 'upload' and no inspection, thousands of images at a time. They've probably lost enough key development people by now that they're afraid to touch the code, can't take the risk of breaking things, and don't have enough monitoring hooks in place.
Its too late, the ship has sailed... they can't afford to pay new people to look back at 100 million images and decide what's real anymore. Even if they did, how many of those poorly paid 'inspectors' could they trust?
Spot on!
-
Within 5 mins I spotted more than dozen thieves proliferating at SS...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1)
Just follow the peach trail and it will lead you to many accounts that lead to many more into infinity...
Yep. Something weird about a couple of those thieves' accounts and that is that their account name doesn't appear in the space where it should......... just a grey pulsating rectangle!! Hovering over that grey rectangle with the cursor reveals 2 weird account names...'think4321' and 'OuSs-911'
-
Within 5 mins I spotted more than dozen thieves proliferating at SS...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-apple-covered-rain-drops-1522140569?src=-1-1)
Just follow the peach trail and it will lead you to many accounts that lead to many more into infinity...
Yep. Something weird about a couple of those thieves' accounts and that is that their account name doesn't appear in the space where it should......... just a grey pulsating rectangle!! Hovering over that grey rectangle with the cursor reveals 2 weird account names...'think4321' and 'OuSs-911'
That usually means that they've been detected and their accounts are in the process of being deleted.
Give it 24 to 48 hours they should be gone 8)
-
How SS accepted these without a (legitimate) press pass is beyond me.
Whole account comprises of stolen images...
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio)
-
SS has many good things. What is evident is that the examiner's department is surely the worst department of the agency.
The department of file examiners should be the most professional, qualified and highest paid department of all departments of the company.
Tenebroso
-
How SS accepted these without a (legitimate) press pass is beyond me.
Whole account comprises of stolen images...
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio)
How shutterstock went from a decent agency to an outfit that can't control jack sh*t is also beyond me :D
-
How SS accepted these without a (legitimate) press pass is beyond me.
Whole account comprises of stolen images...
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio)
How shutterstock went from a decent agency to an outfit that can't control jack sh*t is also beyond me :D
Pure WallStreet GREED....that's how!
-
How SS accepted these without a (legitimate) press pass is beyond me.
Whole account comprises of stolen images...
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/RJ-studio)
Gone
Pure WallStreet GREED....that's how!
Do you have the slightest idea how investors money is what makes a business grow? If you think that the investors are unfairly making money from running a crappy site, or off your hard work, while intentionally doing things wrong... you should buy stock and make that profit yourself.
Shutterstock is cheap, only $44 a share. You can tell them how to run the company right.
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/g/jered+john (https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/g/jered+john)
Some of the images may be his, but many are stolen. I reported some. It's an Indian teenager.
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/g/jered+john (https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/g/jered+john)
Some of the images may be his, but many are stolen. I reported some. It's an Indian teenager.
10 pages of stolen stuff!
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/g/jered+john (https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/g/jered+john)
Some of the images may be his, but many are stolen. I reported some. It's an Indian teenager.
10 pages of stolen stuff!
Starting with oldest stolen from https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fotokris (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fotokris)
-
Vector artists check his work, you will probably find yours there. I found 2, reported, but only get removed.
I believe others are also stolen.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector)
-
Vector artists check his work, you will probably find yours there. I found 2, reported, but only get removed.
I believe others are also stolen.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector)
I know this brings up some nasty returns, but is this stealing of vectors more common than photos, or does it only seems that way? Easier to copy and steal illustrations? Seems like so many new crooks just make a decision to copy, steal and create new, using others vectors as the original.
Seems like the photo people work along a different path. They go for free sites, steal, flip, color, filter and then upload. :(
Oh well, good find, hang em, maybe this would be a useful option for the return of public hangings or at least the site could post on their blogs, how artists were removed, and didn't get paid a cent, to discourage the crooks who think they can make money in image theft. I think some countries now have a 90 day waiting period.
As it is, they just make them disappear and say nothing, so new stupid, criminal minds, think they have a great get rich quick idea.
-
Vector artists check his work, you will probably find yours there. I found 2, reported, but only get removed.
I believe others are also stolen.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector)
I know this brings up some nasty returns, but is this stealing of vectors more common than photos, or does it only seems that way? Easier to copy and steal illustrations? Seems like so many new crooks just make a decision to copy, steal and create new, using others vectors as the original.
Seems like the photo people work along a different path. They go for free sites, steal, flip, color, filter and then upload. :(
Oh well, good find, hang em, maybe this would be a useful option for the return of public hangings or at least the site could post on their blogs, how artists were removed, and didn't get paid a cent, to discourage the crooks who think they can make money in image theft. I think some countries now have a 90 day waiting period.
As it is, they just make them disappear and say nothing, so new stupid, criminal minds, think they have a great get rich quick idea.
They just removed one that was mine, I send them link to his and my image.
He was not banned or anything, so I believe if one more person find something that belong to them, then maybe, his entire account will be banned.
If not, that means if someone steal 5000 vectors from 5000 different authors it will take them 5000 individual reports to have all his images removed :D
-
Vector artists check his work, you will probably find yours there. I found 2, reported, but only get removed.
I believe others are also stolen.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/AlexDesignVector)
I know this brings up some nasty returns, but is this stealing of vectors more common than photos, or does it only seems that way? Easier to copy and steal illustrations? Seems like so many new crooks just make a decision to copy, steal and create new, using others vectors as the original.
Seems like the photo people work along a different path. They go for free sites, steal, flip, color, filter and then upload. :(
Oh well, good find, hang em, maybe this would be a useful option for the return of public hangings or at least the site could post on their blogs, how artists were removed, and didn't get paid a cent, to discourage the crooks who think they can make money in image theft. I think some countries now have a 90 day waiting period.
As it is, they just make them disappear and say nothing, so new stupid, criminal minds, think they have a great get rich quick idea.
They just removed one that was mine, I send them link to his and my image.
He was not banned or anything, so I believe if one more person find something that belong to them, then maybe, his entire account will be banned.
If not, that means if someone steal 5000 vectors from 5000 different authors it will take them 5000 individual reports to have all his images removed :D
That has always been a kick in the ass for us, when someone steals an image and gets a free pass. The guy who stole from you is obviously repurposing others images and work. SS isn't the only place, they just attract the most trouble, because they are the largest. I wonder how Adobe will handle this in the future, because they are moving up.
Believe it or not, I found one of my illustrations, used at Etsy. I don't care, but when I looked, it was a dead link, no longer there. Let me explain, I don't have 50 on SS, and I'd say, someone would really have to be hard up to steal one of mine. They are rasters, not vectors. I have just over 20 vectors on AS. So we're looking at not even scraps that a mouse would eat. Nothing on SS that 1,000 other people haven't done better. Yet someone found one of mine and stole it? :o
-
Then there's this:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Yaroslav+Kovalenko1007 (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Yaroslav+Kovalenko1007)
Number one top image is three cats traced off a still from Disney's The Aristocats
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/three-cute-cartoon-cats-isolate-on-1493728253 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/three-cute-cartoon-cats-isolate-on-1493728253)
https://billsmovieemporium.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/review-the-aristocats-1970/ (https://billsmovieemporium.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/review-the-aristocats-1970/)
The other 28 pages a mix of other people's work (plus maybe a couple of poor originals?)
e.g.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/cartoon-puppy-christmas-hat-scarf-isolate-1497730187 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/cartoon-puppy-christmas-hat-scarf-isolate-1497730187)
stolen from:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/illustration-christmas-puppy-kitten-237267397 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/illustration-christmas-puppy-kitten-237267397)
-
I just reported that one to Disney.
-
These people must think the world is blind and stupid.
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/wolf-howls-moon-vector-illustration-600w-1590384769.jpg
Unfortunately there are another 20 or more people using the same image.
https://tinyurl.com/s72l7zb
-
I remember seeing that wolf and moon image on a vector training website so it may not be a case of anyone stealing, but using free download parts of the final image and they are all putting them together in the same way, following instructions on the training course, and then all uploading them.
Not so much stealing as all using parts of someone else's work without permission I guess.
-
Sort of parallel evolution. I think you're right.
I see plenty of stuff derived from old clip art, and you can tell who's using the same books as a resource. It's lazy, but not stealing.
-
Sort of parallel evolution. I think you're right.
I see plenty of stuff derived from old clip art, and you can tell who's using the same books as a resource. It's lazy, but not stealing.
The clipart books would have to be from before 1924 right? Or are they not copyrighted? I suppose there are technicalities, like one image isn't stealing, but 12 is? ;)
Honestly, aren't the clip art books protected?
And I suspect there are projects and software that have public domain or re-use allowed. The wolf is one of those. Even if it's just a flipped copy of an identical work.
-
The whole point of clip art books is that they are public domain. Most of the artwork is, indeed, over 75 years old. Some of the artwork is over 100 years old. I collect clip art books, which is why I recognize it in stock illustrations.
There are digital clip arts that are public domain, most of them are in very old formats, such as wmf. These older vector formats could not produce curves or gradients, so each image had thousands of nodes, and multiple layers to create any gradients.
I figure, if the submitter has put in the effort to convert these clunky old files into clean, easily edited vectors, it's fair for them to get paid for that. It's certainly worth it to a buyer to have the modernized version.
I see a lot, though, that look like someone just put a book on a scanner, and posted the results. This would violate the terms of service for stock sites that exclude public domain images. Legally, an unaltered copy of a public domain image is still public domain. An altered one, such as one colorized, vectorized, or developed, is considered new work. (however, it can be hard to defend copyright on, since others might do almost the exact same alterations, parallel evolution)
Fun fact: It's called "clip" art because printers used to actually cut it out of large sheets to paste into their layouts.
-
The whole point of clip art books is that they are public domain. Most of the artwork is, indeed, over 75 years old. Some of the artwork is over 100 years old. I collect clip art books, which is why I recognize it in stock illustrations.
There are digital clip arts that are public domain, most of them are in very old formats, such as wmf. These older vector formats could not produce curves or gradients, so each image had thousands of nodes, and multiple layers to create any gradients.
I figure, if the submitter has put in the effort to convert these clunky old files into clean, easily edited vectors, it's fair for them to get paid for that. It's certainly worth it to a buyer to have the modernized version.
I see a lot, though, that look like someone just put a book on a scanner, and posted the results. This would violate the terms of service for stock sites that exclude public domain images. Legally, an unaltered copy of a public domain image is still public domain. An altered one, such as one colorized, vectorized, or developed, is considered new work. (however, it can be hard to defend copyright on, since others might do almost the exact same alterations, parallel evolution)
Fun fact: It's called "clip" art because printers used to actually cut it out of large sheets to paste into their layouts.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I actually used to do paste ups with galley sheets. I think if you look in the front of your books, they are copyrighted, as a book, but the contents will either be public domain or have a limitation such as, you may use only # images in another book.
Good ideas for source material, should someone want to scan and edit and make alterations.
https://www.kissclipart.com/ (https://www.kissclipart.com/)
Abide by the license on each file you download–they are often not the same, so read each license carefully . To quickly view the license for each, click on small image to the preview image.
As KissClipart (KissClipart.com) pictures are derived from the network users to share, so KissClipart does not have sufficient monitoring capabilities to review the picture there are infringement and other circumstances.
The user should consciously abide by the copyright law and other relevant laws and regulations, shall not infringe the legal rights of this site and the right holder, To KissClipart and any third party losses, infringing users should bear full responsibility.
Looks like a useful site for anyone who wants free images or source materials?
Back to the original, some from this guy isn't doing any of that, he''s copying others and flipping or making minor changes.
-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/file-folder-labeled-audit-multicolor-archive-325424111 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/file-folder-labeled-audit-multicolor-archive-325424111)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/privacy-concept-on-folder-register-multicolor-397698664 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/privacy-concept-on-folder-register-multicolor-397698664)
Is this consider suspicious accounts? Both contributors has over 20000 photos.